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.

 



 

 

 

Did Mary ever get out of jail?

 

I had thought that I had said everything I needed to say and everything that everyone needed to hear about the Bishop Heather Cook/Tom Palermo tragedy.

Then it turned out that Bishop Cook had been intoxicated at a private dinner party two days before her consecration, witnessed by her soon to be bosses, Bishop Eugene Sutton (she is a Suffragan or Number 2 Bishop) and Presiding Bishop Katherine Jefferts Schori (the head of the entire Episcopal Church).  The bishops knew that she had been arrested for Driving Under the Influence in 2010 and was supposedly in recovery. 

This news sparked lots of discussion.  As usual, the social media was buzzing with it.  Why hadn’t they postponed or cancelled the consecration?  Why isn’t The Church doing more to help clergy (oh, yes, and everyone else) overcome drinking or drug problems?  Why do Episcopalians enjoy our stereotype as sophisticated drinkers?  (You may not find a can opener in an Episcopal church kitchen, but you will find a corkscrew.  Wherever three Episcopalians are gathered, you’ll always find a fifth.   In the Episcopalian version of the changing the lightbulb joke, there is always someone mixing the cocktails or pouring the wine.) 

I am proud to say that I did not participate online.  I’m not so proud to say that I am participating now.  But I am because this is kind of weird.

Lately, I keep thinking of a public service announcement that I saw as a child in the fifties.  I can quote parts of it verbatim.

It starts out on a sunny street in a pleasant little town, just a little more upscale than Mayberry.  The narrator, who sounds like a fifties sitcom dad, begins:

“Mary Kendall’s in love.  The whole town knows.  And this time it’s for keeps.”

We see Mary, a pretty young woman in a pretty dress, wearing a diamond ring, driving her car, with a dreamy smile on her face.

The narrator goes on to say that Mary is a good driver and has never had an accident.  But sometimes a person can be so used to doing something that his or her mind wanders.

“And in a moment, Mary Kendall will kill” (dramatic pause) “nice old Mrs. Souwikki.

Then we see Mrs. Souwikki in her housedress and (probably; I’m not sure) a hat crossing the street carrying a bag of groceries.

I don’t remember seeing the accident but I do remember the narrator’s next words.

“Now, this won’t do Mrs. Souwikki any good” (scene of Mrs. S’s body being loaded into the ambulance) “Or Mary either” (pronounced “i-ther”) (scene of Mary standing by her car with at least one policeman and crying).  “But it might help you.”

I don’t remember what was said after that but, really, did they have to say anything more to make the point?

A nice old lady is gone.  Mrs. Souwikki probably had cookies for her grandchildren in her grocery bag or maybe even chocolate chips to make the cookies from scratch.  Mary’s life was ruined.  (At the time I thought this was because she would go to jail and wouldn’t be able to have her wedding with the beautiful dress and veil, rather than thinking that she would be tortured with guilt for the rest of her life.)

I don’t know whether this helped me.  But it certainly had an impact.

So what is the connection?  Blog posts and sermons and committees and task forces certainly won’t help Tom Palermo or his family.  Or Bishop Cook either.

But can we say that the posts and sermons, the resolutions of the committees, and the action plans of the task forces won’t help us as individuals?  Tragedies involving people we don’t know come down to being all about us.  How do we react?  Can we learn anything?

And can The Church (any church, really) be helped by all the words about this?  I like to think it could.  But does The Church really believe it can create organized help for people with addictions?  People involved with alcoholics or drug addicts are told over and over, “You can’t help them.  They will only drag you down with them.”  The only person who can save an addict is the addict, usually with the help of other addicts (who will always be “recovering” because once they forget this, they will probably begin to self-destruct again).

As usual, I am not offering any solutions or even suggestions.  I am offering my thoughts partly to sort them out for myself and perhaps bring a spark of recognition to the reader.  “So I’m not to only person in the world who feels that way.”

Like the sermons and committees, this won’t help the principals.  But maybe all the words of the blogs and sermons and the work of the committees and task forces may help other people.

Maybe someone will realize they have a drinking problem.

Maybe someone will stop texting while driving.

Maybe someone will realize how lucky they are their friends and family are alive.

Of course, these things are not worth the death of Mr. Palermo.

But might all of this or some of this help you?

By the way, does anyone else remember Mary and Mrs. Souwikki?

 

 

 

                               

 

I've looked at absurdity from both sides (of the Atlantic) now.

 

Once again the Real World has saved me the trouble of having to come up with my own ideas, this time with not one, but two instances of the denigrating of women.  But while the happenings in Maryland have the makings of a Greek tragedy, these are more like Theater of the Absurd, with some Monty Python’s Flying Circus thrown in.

On January 26, Rev. Libby Lane was consecrated as the first female Bishop of the Church of England.  That’s the good news.  The bad news is that on February 2, Rev. Philip North will also be consecrated.  At a consecration, all the attending bishops lay their hands on the candidate.  Rev. North has asked that no bishop who touched Rev. Lane or any bishop who has participated in the ordination of a woman lay hands on him. 

Rev. North does not agree with the ordination of women as bishops because bishops have always been male, going back to St. Peter.  And as St. Paul said in First Timothy 2:11-15:

“I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over men; she is to keep silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve, and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. Yet women shall be saved through bearing children, if she continues in faith and love and holiness with modesty.”  See more at

 http://www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/Christianity/2004/03/St-Paul-Friend-Or-Enemy-Of-   Women.aspx?p=2#KleFjdxzRKpEzVyV.99

(Or maybe it's just because he’s a d**k.  I can say this because I am a churchlady and not clergy.)  This is bad enough, but I guess he is entitled to his opinion.  I’m sure he would say I am entitled to mine.  (You can give this whatever score you want on the Snarkometer.)  However, he also says that a bishop who has participated in an ordination and actually touched the female candidate is “tainted.”   This reminds me of that old nasty playground game, in which someone is said to have “cooties” and everyone goes “Yuck” and runs away from him or her.

The Archbishop of York, Dr. John Sentamu, Rev. North’s boss when he becomes a bishop, has declared that

“[because] those who are unable to receive the ministry of women bishops or priests continue to be within the spectrum of teaching and tradition of the Anglican Communion, the Church of England remains committed to enabling them to flourish within its life and structures.” - See more at

http://wwew.archbishopofyork.org/articles.php/3204/forthcoming-consecrations#sthash.DBX6PkTN.dpu

The Archbishop, who has ordained women and is therefore “tainted” will not be laying hands on Rev. North.  He is asking the other “tainted” bishops to join him in “exercis[ing ] gracious restraint” and let two handpicked “clean” bishops  perform the laying on of hands. 

So the absurdity, instead of rolling downhill, is leaping up.

There’s nothing I can do about it.  Rev. Lane and women bishops and women priests don’t need me to defend them.  But by pointing this out, maybe I am doing something.  Oh, and I can pray.  (Sorry, God, I forgot that for a minute.)

And here in the States, absurdity is alive and well.  Various evangelical churches are sponsoring Purity Balls in which pre-teen and teen girls promise not to have sex before they are married.  They also promise not to kiss, hold hands, or date.  (I don’t know how they will ever find anyone to marry at that rate, but that’s their problem and their parents.’)  That is, with any male but their fathers.

So the girls will not be able to attend their proms, but they get a chance to wear beautiful gowns and have their hair and nails done, which is really the point of proms anyway.  Their escorts are their fathers.

A common reaction to this seems to be that it is “creepy.”  And anger that is taking away the girls’ humanity.  They are now the exclusive “property” of their fathers and have signed away their right to decide what to do with their own bodies.  By the way, there doesn’t seem to be a Purity Balls for boys.  Maybe they don’t need them if the girls are holding up their end of the bargain.

Now, I have nothing against waiting until you are married or at least until you graduate.  Who has time for a serious love life in high school, what with sports, part time jobs, homework, shopping, texting and hanging out with your friends, and everything else?  (I always told my daughters that it wouldn’t be problem if they got pregnant, because I would kill them.  Just kidding.)  But . . .  But . . .

As I write this, I am starting to see that this whole situation is not just about the degrading or objectification of girls and women.  Thinking about this we can be challenged about our feelings about parental control (which is not always a bad thing) and sexuality.  Okay, I am being challenged.  As parents, we only want what is best for our children.  Sometimes they need to be saved from themselves.  But what is the best way to do that?  And what would Mary and Joseph do?

As I’ve said before, I don’t have answers.  But I do have questions.  What do you think?

 

 

 

 

 

  

Serendipity or the Work of Satan?

It seems that whenever I’m having trouble coming up with a topic to blog about from my own (some people say overactive) imagination, something will come along from The Real World to inspire me.  It might be the refusal by the manager of a Christian soup kitchen to allow atheists to volunteer (“And the Award Goes To . . .”  October 26, 2013), or a diocese’s proposal of a resolution to eliminate the titles of Father and Mother for priests because this reinforces stereotypes based on the patriarchy (“It  Came from the Risen Consciousness,”  October 22, 2014), or the recent tragedy in Baltimore in which a bishop driving under the influence struck and killed a cyclist (“This is all about me.  And it should be!” January 1, 2015).

This week, the bishop, Heather Cook, was indicted on charges of drunk driving and leaving the scene of an accident.  She was bailed out by her “steady companion” of a number of years, Mark Hansen, a former Episcopal priest who was defrocked for abandonment of his parish in protest of his diocese’s support of gay bishops in 2005.  She returned to the rehabilitation facility she had entered before her arrest. As they seem to be saying more and more, you can’t make this stuff up.

Naturally, tongues that had had a break for a few days before the indictment, felt obligated to wag again, often via the social media.  She is being treated too leniently either because she is a bishop (the church still has too much power and influence) or because someone in her circle had enough money to pay for bail (mo’ money, mo’ justice).

Often, especially on Christian websites, posters would call for compassion for everyone, including Bishop Cook and say that they were glad she was getting help.  Others said the best place for recovery would be jail, where maybe she could hit bottom and perhaps wise up.

And as usual, I joined in.  My first comment was “curiouser and curiouser” and the observation that anyone who gets involved with organized religion has gone down the rabbit hole.  I also wondered why the companion didn’t help her before all this happened.  And why she was associating with someone who at the very least had disrespected her church and could possibly be called a heretic?  Could that have been part of the stress that caused her to relapse?

This did not set well with a lot of people. I was being judgmental of both the bishop and her friend.  I realize that I have no right to judge and should have compassion for everyone involved.  And I do, for the victim’s family and for Bishop Cook and her family.  For Mr. Hansen, not so much, but some.

Like my previous post on the subject, this, too, is all about me.  Bring a relationship into a situation, and I (and I suspect a lot of people) forget about being objective.  After all, we get a lot of practice analyzing our own and our friends’ love or like problems and we usually don’t have trouble choosing sides.  I thought of all kinds of ways to condemn someone:  he didn’t help her and probably enabled her; she didn’t accept his help; he may have been in denial about what was happening; she manipulated him.   I told myself that I am a writer (often of fiction) and that I can’t help wondering “what if . . .” Is this an excuse?  Maybe.  Don’t people need to discuss or at least ponder tragic and frightening things?  Of course.  But at the end of the day the bottom line is that we must remember that everyone deserves our compassion, love, and prayers. 

So I am praying for everyone, including myself.  “Have mercy on me, a drama loving, gossiping sinner.”

And, whether I deserve it or not (probably not), God will.

For more information:  http://www.episcopalcafe.com/maryland-bishop-sutton-pastoral-letter/

Also:

I am not going try to make any connection, except as another thing you can’t make up, but on Friday, I came to work and heard that one of my coworkers had been badly injured when hit by the body of a woman who had fallen from and eighth story window.  The woman, an eighteen year old college student was allegedly leaning out the window to take a picture.  She was killed.

Perhaps I am adding this story as a chilling end note to remind us all of the randomness of life.   It’s something to pray about.

This is all about me. And it should be!

On Saturday, December 27, The Rev. Heather Cook, Suffregan Bishop of the Diocese of Maryland, was “involved” in a fatal traffic accident, in which the car she was driving allegedly struck and killed cyclist  Tom Palermo, 41, the married father of two children.  Bishop Cook left the scene of the accident, but returned about twenty minutes later.  The media later reported that in 2010, she had been arrested for driving under the influence and that drug paraphernalia was found in the car at that time.

This post is not about Bishop Cook!

Naturally, much has been said about this, particularly on Facebook.  People need to talk about tragedies in order to come to some understanding of them.  They are scary and incomprehensible.  Very often, we are speaking without knowing all, or any, of the facts.  I think it is useless to try to stop ourselves, to say that it is none of our business, but that we will pray for everyone.  We can only hope that we remember that we are speaking from emotion and that there are lots of things we don’t know.

There were many wise and compassionate posts, but there were also those condemning Bishop Cook and anyone who showed any sympathy for her.  Of course, I joined in, in an effort to process it all and maybe in the back of my mind, thinking I could straighten everyone out.

I was speaking very glibly (but, I truly believe, sincerely) about being compassionate and nonjudgmental, when I suddenly wondered. “Would I be saying these things if it had been my family member, or friend, or even the nice man who delivers our pizza who had been killed?”  I have to admit that I don’t think so. 

Loss of someone is too horrible to think of.  (I always say that being left behind, at least for adults, is worse than dying.)  We Christians have doctrine that is comforting, as long as it is theoretical, but are we perhaps whistling as we walk past the cemetery?

I hope and pray that I never have to make decisions about forgiving anyone connected with the loss of someone I love.  I hope none of us will.  So I will keep whistling.

One life is lost.  One is ruined.  A wife is without a husband.  Two children will grow up without their father.  Parents have lost their son.

There is nothing we can do about it.  So it turns out to be all about us, how we react, what we learn.  If we are not too confused, but especially if we are, we can pray for ourselves and for everyone involved.

(See “The Bishop and the Cyclist” by the Rev’d Dr. Elizabeth Kaeton at Telling Secrets at Blogspot.com.)