Ok, so Ive been a little irritable-
1) The Monologues:
I dont even PERMIT my friends to speak of this debaucle in my presence, so I quote the extremely savvy and wit-ridden blog post of my dear friend macof. (the Latin is to protect the innocent, but Prof McKay is lost if he makes his way over here-)
I am not my (membrum femminarum) Several of my friends and fellow classmates are presenting "The ...Monologues" tonight and tomorrow night. A few of them have asked me whether I'm going. No. No, I'm not. They look at me quizzically, as if to say "What's wrong with you?" I am sympathetic to the goal of raising awareness of and money for the efforts to end violence, especially violence against women and children. I applaud that effort. However, I doubt very seriously that this particular strategy is a laudable one. In fact, I see it as potentially destructive. If sexualized violence is about treating the victim as an object for the perpetrator's pleasure, rather than as a whole human being, then how on earth is anyone supposed to see women as whole human beings in the context of this production? It seems to be an attempt to de-objectify women precicely by objectifying women. Furthermore, I object to the ways in which this production has been advertized. There are signs, some of which say: "membrum femminarum membrum femminarum membrum femminarum" OK, so what is this supposed to accomplish? "membrum femminarum: It's OK to laugh." What? If we're supposed to be honoring the female genitalia, how is laughing supposed to help? "God loves membrum femminarae" I was under the impression that God loves PEOPLE. These signs feel very imposing. When I challenge my friends to imagine how our community might receive signs that say, "membrum virum, membrum virum, membrum virum" or "membrum virum: It's OK to laugh," or "God loves membrum virorum." They readily admit that there would be an uproar, even protests. It would be very refreshing to see people with a little more savvy in their strategizing; this is too important a cause to sabotage through carelessness.
Hat-tip: Basil was a Wuss
2) Squishy Revisionist Atonement Theories, As Though the Whole Thing were From Hans Christian Andersen-
Here I refer to Perfectly Intelligent Theologians getting all squeamish over Anselm's penal atonement theory; oh people please! Can we get OUT of comfycomfyyuppydom long enough to recall that God does in fact LOVE justice and mercy and, on the other hand, HATES the iniquity manifested in the plight of the abused child, the battered woman, the modern-day Sudanese? It's ok to say that such violence and sin is WRONG. It's ok to say that God consequently is MAD about such evil-someone's got to be.
In His mercy, God pours out His wrath against all that injures little children within the Divine Life Himself, so that such evil cannot have the last word. This, folks, is what the Church believes. Sorry-
3) The Monologues
...Trotting over to the Yale Med School to hear a very engaging talk by an adorable young minister who discusses his dual role as pastor AND surgeon, only to sit by for a full twenty minute-diatribe on his Recent Decision to Marry Lesbians in His Parish, dadgummmit!
...BECAUSE- now get this- he had just finished re-reading Martin Luther King's Letter from a Birmingham Jail, and figured that God was speaking to him about inclusion. Yes, God probably was speaking to him about inclusion, which mandate extends to every beloved gay person on the planet. God is ALWAYS speaking to us about inclusion, for Pete's sake.
But since when were the Sacraments Of The Church open to re-interpretation, revision, and "inclusion"... like a salad bar... a free salad bar... a lottery... a grab bag... food stamps? The Bride of Christ, people, is no cheap date.
5) The Monologues
6) Poor reviews of Oscar Wilde's latest, on screen... I love that man. Poor man. Apparently he had his share of conversion moments. At least Grame Hunter at Touchstone thinks so-