Opera Review

Here's another utterly non-theological comment:

The other day I was watching a DVD of the Australian Opera's production of Puccini's Turandot. From the early 1990's, I think. The production itself is (was) splendid. The performances were very good (not quite great, but very good; I think the cast was Australian, but I didn't recognize any of them). Puccini's music, of course, is absolutely wonderful. But surely that has got to be the dumbest plot in the whole of the standard operatic repertoire. (And I'm including the cycle The Ring of the Nibelungs, which is pretty dumb. Great music, though much too long -- Wagner had no self-discipline -- but a pretty dumb plot.) The only character in Turandot who is likeable at all is the slave girl Liu, and she ends up killing herself (well, I probably would too, in the circumstances). The old king Timur is dumb as a box of rocks -- no wonder he was dethroned. Prince Calaf is even more of a jerk than B. F. Pinkerton, and that's saying a lot. Turandot herself, of course, desperately needs to get over herself, and I doubt that falling for Calaf is going to do the job.

Where was Mao Zedong when the people of Peking (Beijing) really needed him?

Letters to The Living Church

One of the really nice things about The Living Church is that it provides so many opportunities to write whining Letters to the Editor. Well, I've had mine for this quarter (and editor David Kalvelage is always very gracious about giving me some whining space every few months); it appeared in the July 5 issue, asking why the Episcopalians for Traditional Faith were pushing the 1928 Prayer Book to celebrate Independence Day. (And that makes sense because....?)

I think David is a fair man (I often don't agree with him, but I think he's a fair man) and therefore it's not appropriate that he give me more space in the TLC Letters column so soon. But this doesn't mean I don't have more whining to share.

1. In the current (July 5) issue, the Episcopalians for Traditional Faith are at it again, this time with a full page ad encouraging couples to choose their wedding ceremony from the 1928 Prayer Book (pages 300-301). And why would that be, do you suppose? Well, in case we missed their point, they use a text highlighter on page 301: "...this Woman to thy wedded wife" and "...this Man to thy wedded husband." Aha. Well, never mind that the 1979 Prayer Book uses almost exactly the same words (page 424). Apparently the point is that the 1928 BCP is the most certain way that folks can proclaim, "No Gay Cooties!" I never knew that about the '28 book, and I grew up with it. But at least we now see what the issue really is. Not that there was really any doubt, I guess. ("Bash a homo! Use the 1928 Prayer Book!")

2. In a response to Bishop Rowthorn's very good article about the proposed expansion of Lesser Feasts and Fasts (now to be titled Holy Women, Holy Men -- Celebrating the Saints), Mr. Kalvelage thinks it's too much, particularly since a number of the persons proposed for commemoration are "unfamiliar to Episcopalians and other Anglicans." Indeed. I unearthed my original copy of Lesser Feasts and Fasts (1963, when we were still using the you-know-which Prayer Book) and looked through the Calendar, which even then included the majority of the commemorations in the current LFF. Except that in 1963 we had never heard of a lot of them; at least I suspect most Episcopalians had never heard of them. But we know them now, and remember them with joy and thanks to God for their witness. And maybe this is the point, yes? Do we really need to be so stingy about how many of God's Holy Ones we commemorate? (And after all, these have all always been optional in any case.)

3. In an adjacent editorial, Mr. Kalvelage argues in opposition to the proposed approval by General Convention of any formal blessing of committed same-sex relationships. He writes (TLC, July 5, page 21): "Such action is contrary to 2,000 years of Christian tradition, and would damage even further The Episcopal Church's already tenuous relationship with much of the rest of the Anglican Communion. Approval of same-gender [sic] blessings also would hasten the departure of conservative Episcopalians from a steadily declining church. In addition, as we have pointed out on numerous occasions, these innovations are non-scriptural." I believe Mr. Kalvelage is a decent and honest man, and no more homophobic than is the case with most of us Straight Guys. But he is missing the point here. (a) We need to be a little careful about "2,000 years of Christian tradition," especially about marriage. Although there is little evidence of committed same-sex relationships before the modern era, it's pretty clear that during much of Christian history, marital sexuality was not very well regarded except as a way to make babies. ("Just close your eyes and think of England.") (b) Please explain to me, David, why we should continue to marginalize our devout and devoted gay and lesbian couples in order not to offend Peter Akinola. (c) Are you suggesting that if we revert to gay-bashing, we're going to recover and keep all these "conservative" Episcopalians who are otherwise departing? (d) Non-scriptural innovations? Episcopalians/Anglicans? Oh, surely not! (Does the word "divorce" strike a familiar note?)

Enough for now....

Political Note of the Day

(This has nothing to do with Liturgy, or even with Curmudgeonhood, though I guess it does have to do with God, because everything has to do with God:)

I see that the Minnesota Supreme Court has just ruled that Al Franken has defeated Norm Coleman for election as United States Senator from Minnesota. (The very very close election has been in the courts since last November.)

The United States Senate will be a much more interesting place for the next six years....

Thought for the Day

On your keyboard, think of a line connecting PC. Then think of a line connecting BS. The lines don't go in the same direction, but they do cross.

Comments on the Office readings

One of the things that some of us have discovered over the years, by God’s grace, is that we do not become familiar with the Bible just by reading it once or twice. One of the blessings of the Daily Office is that after we have worked our way through the office lectionary for twenty or thirty for forty years, we still keep finding new insights in texts that we thought we “already knew.” (The same would be true for those who may not formally pray the daily office but who do have a system of reading through the Bible once a year, or however often.)

Well, in the Daily Office these days we (at least those of us using the American BCP!) have been working our way into 1 Samuel (always a joy). The Philistines have captured the Ark of God, and in the process the priest Eli’s sons Hophni and Phinehas were killed in battle. When Eli heard the news he fell over backward and broke his neck. We saw all that coming, of course. The Lord was ticked that the Ark of God was in Philistine hands, and knocked over the statue of Dagon in the temple at Ashdod and struck the people with tumors (possibly the bubonic plague, which is spread by flea-infested rats, possibly the “mice” referred to in chapter 6). The plague followed the Ark from Ashdod to Gath to Ekron (and apparently to Ashkelon and Gaza as well), and the Philistines finally caught on that keeping the Ark of God was Not A Good Idea. So they sent the Ark back to the Israelites. A wonderful story!

Okay, now I would be interested to hear from the folks who are very much into a strictly literal interpretation of the whole of the Bible: Just what are we to make of this story?

(Remember Ichabod Crane, from Washington Irving’s “The Legend of Sleepy Hollow”? I remember him especially from the 1949 Disney film. The name “Ichabod” means something like “the glory is gone,” and the Biblical Ichabod was the son of Phinehas, born just as the news of the death of his father, his uncle, and his grandfather, and the capture of the Ark, arrived at Shiloh. Ichabod’s mother named him, and then died following childbirth. “Ichabod” is obviously not a very auspicious name! Although apparently a lot of schools in upstate New York are named for Ichabod Crane. But I digress.)

A canticle later we read from the 5th chapter of the Acts of the Apostles, about the counsel of Gamaliel regarding how to deal with Peter and the apostles. “So in the present case, I tell you, keep away from these men and let them alone; because if this plan or this undertaking is of human origin, it will fail; but if it is of God, you will not be able to overthrow them.” In regard to the current dissensions in the Episcopal Church, there might be some argument as to which side is who, but in any case Gamaliel gives good advice: “Well, let’s just see.” I don’t suggest that anyone should be flogged, and certainly not that anyone be ordered not to speak in the name of Jesus, but I also think no one should be permitted to walk away with the church silver.

One of the things that I find interesting is some of the more traditional folks, noting that membership/attendance in the Episcopal Church is going down the toilet (that’s true in some places, not true in others), blames it all on selling out to the “homosexual agenda.” (I’m not quite sure just what that “agenda” is. I don’t think “Just give us a fair break” constitutes an “agenda.”) In the past, of course, the reasons why our membership has been going down the toilet for the last forty years have included getting involved in civil rights, protesting the Vietnam War, ordaining women to the priesthood, and revising the Book of Common Prayer. The decline in our membership statistics is, of course, a serious issue, and needs to be taken seriously. It may be the case that the Episcopal Church would once again flourish statistically if we would just quit meddling in politics, support our President no matter what, put women back in their place, return to Jesus’ own Prayer Book (1928), and, above all, get rid of the gays.

But I don’t think so.

Archbishop Williams (yes, this one this time)

Poor +Rowan. Lately everybody has been picking on him -- both the "progressives" and the "traditionalists." (That's the problem with standing in the middle of the road -- you are likely to be hit by trucks coming from both directions.)

Anyway, somebody recently made reference to +Rowan's 2002 small (in size) book, Writing in the Dust, written in the wake of September 11. So I pulled it off the shelf and read it again last night. It really is a remarkable book -- wise and deeply thoughtful. I am particularly struck by Chapter 5, "Against Symbols."

He writes: "'Using other people to think with'; that is, using them as symbols for points on your map, values in your scheme of things. When you get used to imposing meanings in this way, you silence the stranger's account of who they are; and that can mean both metaphorical and literal death." (p. 64) He speaks of Christians and Muslims, of Christians and Jews, of the West and the East, of men (males) and women.

He doesn't say anything about gay people, nor in the context of the book is there any particular reason why he should. But it seems to me that the sin of "using other people to think with" applies just as much to what we think and say about gays as about Muslims, Jews, women, and all "others."

+Rowan, GO RE-READ YOUR OWN BOOK!

(Hmm. Do you suppose it's possible? -- Grand Tufti, who are you really? And what have you done with our Rowan??)

Archbishop Williams (no, not that one)

http://science.howstuffworks.com/ten-bungled-flight-attempt4.htm

I have absolutely no idea how this is related to the current history of the Anglican Communion, but there must be some connection somewhere.

(Be careful about getting your Archbishops from Wales? No, that can't be it....)