Disaster Area

Tomayto, Tomahto

This year marks an odd milestone in my life. Somewhere during the course of the year I will have lived exactly half of my life in the United Kingdom, and half of my life in North America. I can't say England and the USA because the first half contained a couple of years in Scotland (very interesting and formative years, too), and the latter almost four years in Montreal, Canada. So at some point this year I will be the ultimate transatlantic being.

Having straddled both camps for so long, I never cease to be fascinated by the cultural differences between these two major world entities. There are some things the UK does superbly, and some the US does superbly, but they are by no means the same things. Likewise, there are some things at which the UK is absolutely terrible, and those things at which the US is terrible. Again, not the same things by a long way. I could go into some detail about what I think those things are, but I'll save that for later.

The one thing that seems to be the biggest source of material for contrast, comparison and confusion, though, is language. It took an Irishman to observe that:

"England and America are two countries separated by a common language."

George Bernard Shaw
Irish dramatist & socialist  (1856 - 1950)

And indeed, I have observed many a hilarious episode when unwary travelers from one side of the pond venture to use their own terms and colloquialisms in the other. Misunderstandings can also take the form of non-verbal communication, such as the infamous George H. W. Bush  trip to Australia in January 1992 where he waved two fingers at the locals with the back of his hand, not realizing that this is a deadly insult there. He should have turned his hand 180 degrees, thereby turning the gesture into the famous Winston Churchill "V for Victory" salute. It wasn't a great trip for him, as he immediately went on to Japan, where he threw up at a state dinner. Sadly, that trip wasn't the historical lowlight for the Bush family.

But I digress. The reason this post came to mind is that Bill Bryson, in his excellent book A Short History of Nearly Everything, explains the origins of the name of the light metallic element known as either aluminium or aluminum. While it is true that Americans can occasionally be linguistically lazy, and change spellings and pronunciations to make them easier (or simply get them wrong by mishearing), this is not one of those cases, although many Brits wrongly assume it is.

No, as Bryson points out, the element was "discovered" by the illustrious Sir Humphry Davy and originally named alumium (no "n" or extra "i"). This was a technically correct form for the element, containing the root and the "ium" suffix. Due to some indecisiveness on Davy's part, though, he thought better of it and renamed it alumi-N-um. At this time the Americans jumped into the aluminum business in a big way and simply adopted the name as it was at the time.

Back in the UK, though, Davy's scientist colleagues didn't care for the name, as it lacked the proper "ium" suffix, making it stand out from all those other elements like sodium, calcium, strontium, potassium, and so on. So, after the US had adopted alumi-N-um as the official name for the element, the name in the UK was changed to alumi-NI-um. Why they chose this  rather than revert to Davy's original alumium is beyond me. Some compromises will just never be figured out.

So, as I have discovered over the years, it never pays to make assumptions about how these cultural differences play out.

The aluminum/aluminium debate is of particular relevance to me in my line of work as the vast majority of commercial airplanes (or aeroplanes, as the Brits so quaintly put it) are made of aluminum. There aren't any British commercial airplanes any more, so I think I'm safe in using the US term. Let's not even get into the whole French thing with Airbus...

As a final footnote, there's apparently no truth to the rumor that, with the aircraft (transatlantic neutral word) industry moving to carbon composite structure, the UK is proposing renaming the element carbon, "carbonium", or even "carboninium", although the latter has a certain charm.

Happy Va-LENT-ines Day

It's not always that Valentine's Day falls in the season of Lent, so I guess all those who gave up chocolate for Lent may be a bit torn today.

It seems that Lenten devotional material is a bit on the lowbrow side this year. The UK seems to be doing a lot of L4 - Love Life, Live Lent, while the official Episcopal Church Lent guide, courtesy of Episcopal Relief and Development, is apparently a pre-school level review of the Millennium Development Goals. Unfortunately, I don't know of too many pre-schoolers with checkbooks, so writing those checks to ERD will be a bit problematical. Not to mention the joined-up writing and all that complicated stuff. Yes, apparently the best way to make progress towards those MDG's is to send money to ERD. ASAP. And plenty of it. How lovely to have a Lenten devotional that has it's hand in your wallet every other day.

The MDG's themselves are worthy of more study, especially as we're roughly half way to 2015 since their inception. Check out the UN MDG Monitor for progress (hint, Africa's really, really bad).

Oh well, why not just love everything today?

Ballet Night Again

Tonight was the third "take somebody else's wife to the ballet" night for me. For the first two I met the wives in question away from their homes, as they were coming from completely different directions than where I live. Tonight was the first time I picked up the guest wife in question at her home, from her husband. Just a little odd, really, picking up somebody else's wife for a "date".

But never mind, the ballet was quite excellent - Roméo et Juliette - music by Prokofiev, choreography by Jean-Christophe Maillot. This production is quite spare - the sets and costumes lack the ornate period look common with previous productions, but it works exceptionally well. The blurb on the Pacific Northwest Ballet website puts it quite well (if a little ornately):

The arrival of Jean-Christophe Maillot's full-length contemporary ballet marks the fulfillment of Artistic Director Peter Boal's long-term dream for Seattle audiences.

This three-act production of Shakespeare's great love story was premiered in 1996 by Les Ballets de Monte Carlo, where Jean-Christophe Maillot is resident choreographer and artistic director. His contemporary interpretation has been hailed throughout the world as  one of the most beautiful ballets adapted from Shakespeare's masterpiece that can be seen today." (Scènes Magazine).

"Jean-Christophe Maillot has wisely chosen to update a classic, choreographing with a lucidity that is hard to find. He serves up a psychological reading through a progression of emblematic scenes...[and] assisted by an intelligent scenic mechanism...Maillot makes room for fine scenes of individual expression, alternating them with magnificent ensembles." —Le Provence

Prokofiev's glorious ballet score is frequently called his masterpiece. Its thematic melodies — by turns sweetly tender, sweepingly passionate, hotly fierce and chillingly eerie—provide counterpoint and impart eloquent support to the narrative.

Well worth checking out if you're in the Seattle area - it runs through next weekend.

Movies and Gender Roles

I just got back from staffing a diocesan youth weekend here in Seattle (appearances by both bishops - yay!). The theme was "Now Playing", basically a movie-themed weekend. I thought a fun game would be "guess the movie" based on a synopsis, a good review and a bad review - with any obvious details removed, of course. Well known movies only, of course.

I got my info from Amazon, as the bad reviews especially are easy to pick out with just a mouse click. One really interesting one star review was this one - see if you can guess the movie:

There's no way to put a good spin on this bad plot. The little meek heroine gives up her voice to get the man. Not too subtle, is it? The interesting woman in the movie is the smart, intelligent, proactive and powerful woman. Why can't they offer women role models who are powerful, smart and good? Powerful women are scary so they must be evil and seek to harm and diminish and denigrate other women. So much for sisterhood. It's very disappointing that in the 21st Century, we're still peddling this extremely negative message to little girls. And what must the heroine give up in order to have her man? Let's see...her voice, her talent, her home, her dreams, but alas, it's all worth it. Or so we're led to believe. Yuck. I am profoundly disappointed that these type of movies are still popular amongst parents and children alike.

At first I was taken aback, but quite quickly I was taken with how accurate the review was. Any guesses as to which movie it is? Answer after the jump...

In the Upper Room: Twyla Tharp and Phillip Glass

The highlight of the Contemporary Classics ballet program the last two weeks has easily been In the Upper Room from 1986, with music by Phillip Glass, choreography by Twyla Tharp. It's really impossible to convey in words just how brilliant this 40 minute piece is, but fortunately there are several clips posted on Youtube. Here's a 2 minute piece from the finale.

There are thirteen dancers in the cast, and Tharp had code names for the different groupings. There are the modern dancers in sneakers, named the Stompers, the Ballet Couples (somewhat self-explanatory), and the pair of female dancers in ballet attire known as the Bomb Squad. Nobody seems to know the exact reason for the last name, but one of the dancers in last night's show was of the opinion that it came about because their dancing is so frenetic it seems like they're on a mission to attack something. About a minute into the piece linked above, the Bomb Squad appears in their all red attire and they dance their hearts out for the remainder of the clip.

If only the whole thing were available on DVD. Sadly, not even the whole score is available - only five of the nine movements have been recorded for sale.

A Magical Night

A week ago I had a dilemma. Sue and I have had season tickets to the ballet for about four years now, and the next night we had tickets was tonight. I didn't want to go alone, I certainly wasn't asking a guy, and asking women would have seemed too weirdly like a date. Giving the tickets away or selling them seemed like way too much of a retreat. I mentioned this to a friend of mine, Edward, and he said that his wife Susanna would surely love to go, and that there was no way on this earth that he would take her. This seemed like the perfect way to go so I asked Susanna, and off we went to the ballet tonight.

The next night I mentioned the ballet dilemma to friends and ended up with three more volunteer wives. I have one performance left, which is going in the church auction on Saturday. Dinner and ballet with Dave... It doesn't hurt that our seats are front row of an upper box.

I particularly didn't want to miss tonight because the program, Contemporary Classics, featured Kiss, a piece they performed only 18 months ago, and which was brilliant. There was also Caught, featuring strobe lighting that makes it appear the solo dancer is floating around the stage.

Susanna and I had a lovely dinner, then took a walk out to get coffee, then took our seats in plenty of time to scope out the auditorium. The first piece was Agon, a 50 year old classic Balanchine piece. I have never been able to see what people see in Balanchine, and Agon was OK, but not outstanding. Then came an intermission before the two short feature pieces. Kiss was up first, and was just as beautiful as I remember it. Two dancers are suspended on wires and kiss, entangle and disentangle to Arvo Pärt's haunting Cantus in memory of Benjamin Britten. Sue and I loved it when we saw it last year in the Valentine's program and it was just as good this time around.

After a brief pause, Caught was performed by Noelani Pantastico (who is one of the driving forces behind the behind-the-scenes look at ballet life at PNB Unleashed), the only female dancer entrusted with the work. After a brief introduction with the dancer moving between pools of light thrown by floodlights, the dancer leaps around the  stage illuminated only by strobe lighting, controlled (as best I can tell) by a remote in her hand. At one point, Noe appeared in the same leaping pose about seven times in different places around a circle. Amazing stuff. The electronic music by Robert Fripp was a fitting backdrop.

Those two pieces I expected to be impressed by, and I certainly was. After another intermission, the final piece was In The Upper Room, choreographed by Twyla Tharp to music by Philip Glass. The few pieces by Philip Glass that I've heard before led me to low expectations for this piece, but it proved to be a forty minute delight. The music, dance and costume metamorphoses kept me spellbound throughout. Absolutely brilliant.

We stayed for the twenty minute question and answer session with Peter Boal, the director, who is always charming and eloquent, and Noelani, who answered a lot of questions about Caught and her career in general.

Fabulous night, just fabulous. If you're in the Seattle area and this might be at all up your alley, you really should catch this.

Ending Racism - One Wedding at a Time

Just got back from a beautiful wedding. The bride was one of the many youth that grew up in our Diocesan youth program a few years ago. She's a fabulous, wonderful, compassionate person, and a joy to be around. She went to college, graduated and became active in Campus Crusade for Christ. While on a summer mission program she met a young guy, originally from Taiwan (who grew up in the US and had just graduated from Stanford). Two years later, here they are, getting married.

Even a couple of decades ago this would have raised a few eyebrows, but today, it's basically a non-event, racially speaking. Both families couldn't have been happier today for the couple.

I bring this up because the groom, shortly after started dating his future bride, wrote an email to his Campus Crusade mentor (and the guy that married them today) saying basically, "I just met this great girl. I think she's white..."

So, whenever it seems that racism is a huge obstacle that will never be conquered, I just want to point out the hope in this continuing story in the younger generations.

Happy Star Wars Day

May the fourth be with you!

An Acceptable Sacrifice? - The Full Story

I just finished reading An Acceptable Sacrifice? It's an intriguing book in many ways. I'll write more of an in-depth review soon, but for now, here's a few first thoughts.

First, it's the kind of intelligent inquiry into the "gays in the church" debate that should have been initiated years ago - more specifically in the US long before Gene Robinson's episcopacy was a gleam in anyone's eye. And given that Gene was an unsuccessful (but close) candidate for two episcopacies in the late 90's, sooner would have been better.

Still, on to the book at hand. Kudos to the authors for taking this on. Now, undoubtedly, they come from the sympathetic side of the great gay debate, yet they do it with a great deal of humility. Much of the content is framed as a question or situation to be explored, rather than territory to be defended.  That's refreshing in its own right.

That said, the book is written by high falutin' Cambridge bred theologians for the most part, so it can be heavy going in parts.  Apparently they don't  have a "writing theology for the mass market" class in the UK (Now there's another opportunity for Brian McLaren), so you have to gear up your brain pretty tight. 

The question of the title has different connotations depending on geographic location. To what extent are we sacrificing the gay community? In reality, the debate is about honesty. "Don't ask, don't tell" prevails in much of the west, while "don't even breathe a word because you might get killed" is the model that prevails in much of the global south. The debate in the west is not really about whether gay people should be in the church, but how far up its leadership ranks they can be permitted to go. This is the Gene Robinson/Jeffrey John question. What happens in Nigeria is something I can't even fathom.

The book is divided into four major sections:  The Use of Scripture  (could have been titled  "or misuse"), History and Tradition,  Reason and Personhood, and The Wider Horizon.

The first section, the use of scripture, covers how we read and interpret scripture, and delves into the old and new testament perspectives on homosexuality.

The second section, history and tradition, is fairly broad ranging, covering sexual, economic and political mores through the ages. It points out, as many have, just how modern a thing is the modern marriage. Marriage through the ages has been much more about maneuvering for political and economic advantage than it has been about companionship and relationship. So "tradition" isn't always what one expects.

The third section, reason and personhood, covers the physiological and psychological aspects of being.  The chapter on intersexuality is very thought provoking as we  contemplate the "not quite binary" nature of male and female.

Finally, the section on the wider horizon gets into global economics and its  role in gender politics and economics. I disagree on many levels with Malcolm Brown's chapter on globalization, but it was still an interesting and thought-provoking read - surely the litmus test of good writing? Michael Beasley's chapter on the global threat of AIDS and the response to it is also excellent. I also have some issues with that chapter, but I'm glad he wrote it.

So, for this go-around, I give the book full marks for intent and effort, slightly less for accessibility, and I commend it to you heartily if the subject is of interest to you.      

Read This Book!

The book in question is this: Going To Heaven, The Life and Election of Bishop Gene Robinson. (Amazon Canada, Amazon UK)

With all the furore over Anglican Communion goings on of late, it is very timely that I could get around to reading Going to Heaven, a biography of Bishop Gene Robinson with particular emphasis on his election as Bishop of the Diocese of New Hampshire. My post on Women in the Church apparently caught the eye of the publishers and they asked if I'd like a copy to read. Well, what did I have to lose, so they sent it along and I put it into the reading pile.

The last week I've been alternating that with An Acceptable Sacrifice. The two complement each other quite well. Acceptable Sacrifice is more on the theory side (well, so far as I've read), while Going to Heaven is more on the practical side.

I'll admit I'm only two thirds through Going to Heaven, but there's no way this book can fail to keep my attention the rest of the way. The first forty pages or so, devoted to Robinson's life growing up in a dirt poor fundamentalist family in West Virginia, and his subsequent escape to college and the Episcopal Church are a bit slow. And, while I don't really want the prurient details, there is precious little about the experiences that shaped his sexual identity. Apart from a few oblique allusions here and there, you'd be hard pushed to tell this was the story of the most famous gay bishop in history.

Still, once we move on to his ordination to the priesthood and his marriage, the pace picks up a little. His first taste of parish ministry was, um, interesting. The narrative glosses over the details of his thirteen year marriage, although ti seems fairly idyllic, blessed with two kids, and there's precious little explanation about what triggered his decision to divorce. Still, it's amusing the way Adams describes the way he starts cruising the gay dad's scene, and in mid-winter, picks up a copy of the Advocate and signs himself up for a solo vacation in St Croix, where he met the guy who would be his partner for life. It's a bit jarring, really.

The narrative really picks up as we find out about Robinson's career in the Diocese of New Hampshire after the divorce as he starts working for Bishop Doug Theuner. It's easy to see why New Hampshire, after twenty years of service in the diocese, thought he was the right person for to succeed Bishop Theuner. Adams does a nice job weaving the different stories and themes leading up to the New Hampshire election, General Convention 2003 and on to the consecration. As a window on Episcopal polity it's without equal. Of course, books on Episcopal polity are pretty few and far between (with good reason, for the most part.) The General Convention chapter is gripping and brilliantly written - it alone is worth the price of the book.

Member of a New Hampshire congregation throughout, Adams writes from a perspective sympathetic to Robinson, but she does well to describe opponents in a fair light. This is no black and white, good guys-bad guys tale. The fallout for individual parishes in New Hampshire is made pretty evident - as happened across the nation, a lot of older, conservative members left the church with a heavy financial impact. Many in my diocese pretended this wasn't the case, but after a couple of years, it has become evident the attendance and financial impact was, and remains, significant. It's nice to see it reported fairly here.

There are plenty of thoughtful moments, nuggets of wisdom and insights into the liberal/conservative differences sprinkled throughout. Here's one that's not original, but is an important one. Responding to questions about the authority of scripture, Robinson (p 158) answered:

"...as Christians we take scripture very seriously. Episcopalians have always taken scripture seriously, but never literally. Some of the critics are calling themselves traditionalists, and yet are trying to take us to a place that has never been our tradition. Ever. We've never been a denomination that literally read and believed every word of the Bible. On the other hand we take it all seriously."

Really, for anyone around the Anglican Communion that's interested in the story that has played out over the last four years or so, it really is a must read. I'll write a wrap-up review when I'm finished. Kudos to Elizabeth Adams for writing this, and I wish her well in her new home city of Montreal.

In the event you'd really like a copy, but are short of ready cash, email me and I'll gift a copy to the first three people to ask.