Matthew Weiner on America

A few years ago I started reading John Updike’s books and they really spoke to me, not in a morally uplifting way, but because they show what I think is a slice of reality regarding late 20th-century America. In the same way, I love Mad Men, not due to any moral lesson, but as a window into what the last century may have been like for some people. The near past is the hardest for us to decipher, because we are too close to it and yet so far away from it – what was 1992 like? I barely remember myself and would find it hard to reconstruct accurately. Anyway, Matthew Weiner discusses aspirational America in this interview, and I love his take on it:

Everyone loves the Horatio Alger version of life. What they don’t realize is that these transformations begin in shame, because poverty feels shameful. It shouldn’t, but everyone who’s experienced it confirms this. Sometimes people say, I didn’t know we were poor—Don Draper knows he’s poor, very much in the model of Iacocca or Walton, who came out of the Great Depression, out of really humble beginnings. Or like Conrad Hilton, on the show. These men don’t take no for an answer, they build these big businesses, these empires, but really it’s all based on failure, insecurity, and an identity modeled on some abstract ideal of white power. I’ve always said this is a show about becoming white. That’s the definition of success in America—becoming a WASP. A WASP male.

The driving question for the series is, Who are we? When we talk about “we,” who is that? In the pilot, Pete Campbell has this line, “Adding money and education doesn’t take the rude edge out of people.” Sophisticated anti-Semitism. I overheard that line when I was a schoolteacher. The person, of course, didn’t know they were in the presence of a Jew. I was a ghost. Certain male artists like to show that they’re feminists as a way to get girls. That’s always seemed pimpy to me. I sympathize with feminism the same way I identify with gay people and with people of color, because I know what it’s like to look over the side of the fence and then to climb over the fence and to feel like you don’t belong, or be reminded at the worst moment that you don’t belong.

Take Rachel Menken, the department-store heiress in the first season of Mad Men. She’s part of what I call the nose-job generation. She’s assimilated. She probably doesn’t observe the Sabbath or any of these other things that her parents did. That generation had a hard time because they were trying desperately to be buttoned-down and preppy and—this is my parent’s generation—white as could be. They were embarrassed by their parents. This is the story of America, this assimilation. Because guess what, this guy Don has the same problems. He’s hiding his identity, too. That’s why Rachel Menken understands Don, because they’re both trying desperately to be white American males.

CANA becomes CONNAM

I just saw this:

Appointment of Bishop Felix Orji as the Coordinating Bishop of the Church of Nigeria North American Mission (CONNAM)

The Rt Rev’d Dr Felix Orji, the Bishop of the Anglican Diocese of the West in the United States has been appointed as the Coordinating Bishop of the Church of Nigeria North American Mission (CONNAM) with immediate effect.

By this appointment Bishop Orji will coordinate the mission of the Church of Nigeria in the United States which operates in two Dioceses: Anglican Diocese of the Trinity (ADOTT) under the Rt Rev’d Amos Fagbamiye and the Anglican Diocese of the West under the Rt Rev’d Felix Orji.

The appointment was signed by the Primate of All Nigeria, His Grace, the Most Rev’d Henry C. Ndukuba on Friday October 16, 2020.

Congratulations to the Rt Rev’d Felix Orji, the Coordinating Bishop of CONNAM.

The LORD be with you.

The Ven. Paul Dajur, PhDGeneral

Secretary CON

I wonder what prompted this change?

An old catechism

I can’t remember where this came from, probably Credenda/Agenda. Maybe Doug Jones wrote it? Anyway, I found it in my files.

Opening

A. Why do the heathen rage?

The Lord has called them to a feast, quite fat

with milk and honey, rich with meat and bread,

but they would rather die than take a bite.

B. Why do they love the dark and not the party?

The dark helps them pretend they are alone,

where they can play the king of all,

where no one pushes back against their face.

C. And why does God offer a feast?

God is a feast: come taste and see; sweeter

than honey. He is a party, a dance

named Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

D. But what sort of dance is the Lord?

The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit dance

like heroes after triumph, King David,

and those women whirling at God’s wedding.

E. Wait, why does God have a wedding?

His joy bursts out, spilling; He wants to share

the pleasure of this dance. The Spirit woos;

the Father calls; the Son seeks out His bride.

Community

F. Why do Father, Son, and Spirit enjoy each other so much?

They have never been alone. Forever

side-by-side and through-and-through; they

have no secrets, and know each other inside out.

G. But some people who live long together despise one another.

But Father, Son, and Holy Spirit

give up life for one another, a sacrifice,

a gift received by each with greater thanks.

H. Why do they sacrifice for one another?

Each counts the other better, like friends who

brave a burning house to free a failing

friend; he cannot live without their breath.

I. But does that mean that God can die?

God cannot die; His sacrifice gives life,

more and more, a miracle of glory,

a light upholding light for evermore.

J. What do we call this mysterious connection of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit?
This sacrifice, this freedom, this excess
of joy that shapes all things, this dance of God,
this bond, this heart divine, we call: love.

Unity

K. So the three Gods love each other very much?

No, nein, nyet. Only one God lives and moves

and holds his own. Father, Son, and Spirit

are one, not three. Simple math is too loose.

L. Does this three-is-one not hurt your head?

No, we love the thrill. I am no judge

of God; no human mind would make this up.

We’re too bland and flat to match His art.

M. But still, can you make any sense of God’s oneness?

“The Lord our God is One” because the Son

indwells the Father, Father indwells Son,

Spirit in the Father, Spirit in the Son.

N. Is God also one from some other angle?

The Father brings forth the Son, begotten,

not made; the Son sends out the Spirit,

almighty, advancing from the Father.

O. Why is the oneness of God important?
We need not fear a thousand gods at war;
no petty squabbles with Zeus and Hera;
our One a handshake, a bond of harmony.

Particularity

P. So this one God must have three parts or wear three masks, a mask for Father, one for Son, one for Spirit?

No, nein, nyet. He wears no masks; God’s truly

three, each unique. The Father’s not the Son,

nor Spirit, Son, nor Father, Spirit.

Q. How is the Father unique?

The Father’s known for origins, beginnings,

and the past. He gets the story started,

then betrayed, and speaks the Son, begotten.

R. How is the Son unique?

The Son is known for body, fully God

in flesh, the present, faithful Word, the king

and priest who comes to win his bride.

S. How is the Spirit unique?

The Spirit’s known for power, giving life

to bones, the future. He brings relief and fire,

perfects with beauty, completes the story.

T. So some divine persons are better and some submit?
No, all are equal, wholly God on par,
none better, stronger, but the Son submits,
Spirit proceeds, none grasping for equality.

History

U. How, then, does God begin to draw us to His wedding?

At first, He pressed His face through matter,

His grin seen in whales, lions, ostriches,

that style shown in horses, locusts, marriage.

V. What marriage in creation is this?

Adam and Eve were married in the Garden,

a king and queen, enjoying peaches, hawks,

each other, sent to build bridges, phones, toys.

W. Why did they never accomplish these things?

They grew impatient, ungrateful, fussy;

they pictured God as simple, stingy, a rule.

God closed His dance and sent them off to grow.

X. Where did they go? What did they do?

Their numbers grew, and some loved Oneness,

as tyrants, others loved the Many, as

fragments; they could not dance the One-in-Three.

Y. How would they ever return to God’s wedding?
God gave them wedding gifts: sweet law, good land,
and death; he gave big piles of promises,
free desert trips—but no groom, no Son or Spirit.


Z. Who could overcome such thirst? such darkness? such death?
The Trinity unveiled in flesh, in Jesus Christ,
the long awaited groom, the Son of God,
who came to free His dirtied bride, weeping
and torn, now longing for the dance. He
slayed her dragon, poured her water, fed her
bread and wine. He brought her new white clothes
and a new white name, Church. He pulled her close
and whispered: Rage no more, just kiss the Son.

History

Y. How could the dirtied bride enter the Son’s wedding?

Christ killed her sin upon His bloody cross;

Like Father and the Spirit, triune life

is death and gift, a dance of sacrifice.

X. Where did the Son take her? What does she do?

United to His wife, He raised her from

the dead, ascended into heaven, and joined

the dance, the fellowship of Trinity.

W. How can the bride not fall again, like in the Garden or the desert?

Unlike Mosaic saints, who strained without

a will, God poured the Spirit in His Church,

empowering us for loyalty and love.

V. What is the purpose of this marriage of Son and Church?

This new Adam and Eve pick up the work

abandoned by the first—to raise a godly

seed, expand the feast, and build a garden city.

U. How does God send us from the wedding?

He loads our arms with water, wine, and bread

and sends us cheering down the highway,

to fill the wedding hall with guests

Particularity

T. How do connections in the Church somewhat reflect the Trinity?

The Church is one, a body joined by bone,

skin, and blood; some of us knees, some eyes, all

dependent, no toes surging to be lips.

S. How does the Spirit shape the Church?

The Holy Spirit changes us, step-by-step,

matures us for divine surprises now

and evermore, expectations unimagined.

R. How does the Son shape the Church?

The Son gives His body, His righteousness,

so we can share His throne beside the Father,

and join the song against His enemies.

Q. How does the Father shape the Church?

The Father calls the Church to love the past,

learn its story, overcome, hear the Son,

and boldly walk through earth and heaven.

P. How do the real differences between Father, Son, and Spirit reflect life?

God sends us death, disease, and war to help

us love the burning chasms bright within

His glory, depths beyond compare.

Unity

O. Why is God’s oneness important for the Church?

The Son prayed for union within His bride,

as Father dwelt in Him, and He in Father,

and so one day our splinters will connect.

N. How do we indwell one another?

We indwell by giving up our life and strength

for others, making them more free and full,

and they, in love, return the gift to us.

M. What does giving up life and strength look like?

The laws of God express the love of God,

they show us sacrifice and loyalty,

tenderness and jealousy, faith, hope, and gift.

L. How do we learn these mysteries of love?

We do not learn them in a lab or draw

them in a proof. The Lord reveals these things

in Scripture and leads the Church to truth.

K. How does Scripture go about showing Father, Son, and Spirit are one?

Scripture calls each one God and marks their work:

creating, saving, judging, all divine,

while saying none beside or like Him lives.

Community

J. Why can’t hermit-like gods of other religions love like the Trinity?

They “lived” alone from all eternity,

not sharing, giving, speaking to an equal;

they had no social skills, just solitude.

I. Should we think of three first then one, or one first then three?

God’s mystery declares for both, as one

ancient said, I cannot think one without

the three, nor three without the one.

H. Is the will of God arbitrary, able to change any which way?

Loner gods live like that, with no one else

to press against, but Father, Son, and Spirit

submit their wills in love, creating one.

G. Why is it often so hard for humans to get along together?

The modern world believes we’re little gods,

each alone, each supreme, each full, each a bead,

disconnected, rolling for no goal.

F. How can we imitate how the Father, Son, and Spirit enjoy each other?

For us, love must cover many little sins,

consider others as better than ourselves,

and keep our eyes on what’s important.

Closing

E. Why do Father, Son, and Spirit wish to share their life?

They find each other most intriguing—artists,

after all, of eagles in air, serpents on rock,

ships across sea, and men and women kissing.

D. Why does God laugh at those who reject His gifts?

Loyalty: the Son turns tables for the Father,

the Spirit defends the Christ, the Father

mocks those who seek the Son’s inheritance.

C. Why does God give us a banquet in front of our enemies?

To show the smallness of their hearts; they so

hate their bodies and its hunger, they cannot

dance or bear the triumph of His grace.

B. How do we come to love the wedding and not the dark?

By nothing in ourselves; God’s foolishness

undoes ours; He gives new eyes; some He drags,

some He pushes, many come born inside.

A. What is man, that Thou art mindful of him?
And why has He crowned us with such glory?
Praise God’s excellent name—Father all-gracious,
victor, Son our mansion, Spirit our breath.

This is why you avoid tainted leaders

Ravi Zacharias's Ministry Investigates Claims of Sexual Misconduct at Spas  | News & Reporting | Christianity Today

Over a year ago I expressed my disappointment that Ravi Zacharias was being invited to speak at the ACNA Assembly; you can read the post here. Lo and behold, the now dead Zacharias is being exposed more and more. One of the worst things about his sexual sins is that they caused others to give up on the faith:

One of the women said she stopped believing in God for a while after her encounter with Zacharias but has returned to faith after extensive counseling. Another said she has not been to church since and can’t trust religious institutions. It took her seven years of therapy to come to the conclusion that what Zacharias did to her was not her fault, she said.

The third moved away from Atlanta, changed names, changed careers, and never mentioned what happened—not even to her closest family—until she was contacted by CT.

“I put all of that behind me,” she said. “I don’t want money and don’t want them to even know who I am. The only reason I’m talking is for other women out there who have been hurt by him.”

ACNA messed up by inviting the fraudulent apologist because his history was already public knowledge, it was not some big secret. The latest stories from his spas are revolting and new information, but there was enough out there at the time to see that we should steer clear of him.

The other speaker I was worried about was Archbishop Mbanda. He has shown his true colors many times but western Anglicans are generally too ignorant to connect the dots and see his problems.

Who we ally with can say a lot about who we are. ACNA lacks wisdom in this area.

Birth, Freedom and Identity in Michel Houellebecq’s Submission

We like to believe that we choose our own path, create our own destiny, and are the master of our fate, the captain of our soul, to paraphrase William Ernest Henley.  But is this really the case, or are we defined by the very place we live, or the time that we are born? For example, would you be you if you had been born 200 years ago in another part of the world? Michel Houellebecq’s novel Submission suggests that who we are is largely contingent on where and when we live, not our innate genius, and in this, the book is very Foucauldian.

Let us briefly examine the contents of the book. The book is set in France in the very near future, 2022 to be specific. This France is identical in almost every way to the France of 2015, there are not massive technological leaps or systems of control akin to Orwell’s 1984. The main difference in this France is that a Muslim party and a Muslim candidate win the Presidential election. The book centers on a character named François, a literature professor whose best days are behind him. François has lived a life largely uncommitted to anything, having sex with women who drift out of his life, disconnected from his divorced, Baby Boomer parents, irreligious, uninterested in politics, and seemingly an alcoholic based on the massive amounts he drinks in nearly every scene of the novel.

François is something of a cipher, mirroring perfectly the emptiness of modern Western Europe. He is also almost a caricature of what we might imagine a middle-aged, unmarried college professor to be. He is generally intellectually disinterested, he uses his classes to hit on young female students, and he is lazy. He “…never felt the slightest vocation for teaching” (Houellebecq 9), and doesn’t “…like young people and never had” (Houellebecq 9). If this were a romantic work, we might expect François to be some sort of radical non-conformist who exists to foment revolution on the system, sleeping with women and corrupting the morals of the youth! But no, this is not the case. He has simply drifted into his lifestyle, not through any great thought or choice, but apparently because it is the water that he swims in as a French literature professor in the Twenty-First century. To use Foucault’s terminology, problematization has made him what he is. Gary Gutting summarizes what problematization means:

The fact that my existence is problematized in a specific way is no doubt determined by the social power relations in which I am embedded. But, given this problematization, I am able to respond to the issues it raises in my own way, or, more precisely, in a way by which I will define what I, as a self, am in my historical context (Gutting 103).

     To apply this concept to François, he is operating within a limited set of choices available to him. Had he been born in Japan, or in the France of 1200, his life would have been very different. His sexual appetites would have been unlikely to be the same given the social strictures upon him, and he would presumably have thought quite differently about god, society and his parents. The social forces impinging on him have divided him from family, community, religion and the political space and have turned him into another atomized individual who doesn’t care much for what goes on in the world.

     The book cleverly tracks the life of French author J.K. Huysmans, who François has devoted his academic life to studying. Huysmans converted to Christianity towards the end of his life, and the hollow life that François leads brings us to suspect that he too is on the same course. In fact, he visits the Ligugé Abbey, a monastery, “…where Huysmans had taken his monastic vows” (Houellebecq 170). But in this tale, Christianity has lost all of its force, at least for François, and his visit achieves nothing. The social power of the Christian faith is not strong enough in France to correct the identity of François, because there is a new player on the scene.

     The new power in France is of course Islam, about which François says, “To be honest, it wasn’t a religion I knew much about” (Houellebecq 199). This lack of knowledge for a professor of literature in the modern day is somewhat astonishing, but I believe it shows what a blank slate François is. His parents did not teach him religion, his society does not demand any belief of him, and so he has made it to middle age with limited knowledge of a faith whose numbers are exploding in Europe. Foucault teaches that, “A society without power relations can only be an abstraction” (Foucault). While the West has debated the merits of Capitalism, Socialism and many other systems of thought, Islam has continued in its ancient form as a system of pure power, uniting mosque and state. Houellebecq quotes the Ayatollah Khomeini, who says, “If Islam is not political, it is nothing” (Houellebecq 181).

     The France of Submission undergoes a total transformation when an Islamic party wins the Presidential election. Suddenly, education is controlled by an Islamic worldview, polygamy becomes legal and a fusion of Middle Eastern petro-states and Europe begins to occur. Women’s fashions move towards modesty outside the home, and the Welfare State is scrapped. Surely, this means that a sexual libertine such as François is doomed in this new system? To our surprise, he is not! The book can be scene as a three-part narrative, first with François declining along with modern France in indifference and solipsistic nihilism, second with him seeking the same path of conversion as his hero Huysmans and failing to achieve any transcendental meaning, and thirdly to a submission to Islam (which of course means ‘submission’) out of conformity to the new social reality and the demands of his libido.

     It should not surprise us that a man with as little conviction about anything as François is should buckle under and convert to Islam. François is subjected to new powers from on high, powers that are favorable to him if only he will make the concession of converting to Islam. He can then take up to four wives, or perhaps three based on his salary. This will provide his cooking for him and satisfy his sexual urges with a younger bride, probably the result of an arranged marriage. He can take up his teaching post again, and indeed is recruited into doing so by someone who needs intellectual credibility at his university. Other than professing his faith in Allah and Muhammad as his prophet, very little in his day to day life needs to change. Perhaps the most shocking thing about this book is how little actually has to change in France when Islam comes to power! People still shop, take the train and read the news. Sexual power is now more in the favor of men, but when you analyze the previous “hook-up” culture that demanded no commitment from men, perhaps not too much has changed. Life goes on and the exhausted Western culture that has given up on its heritage goes quietly into the night as Islam comes into power. François adopts to this new power by becoming a Muslim, putting up no resistance whatsoever against a faith that should be utterly alien to him.

     Who are we? Submission is an almost picture-perfect illustration of Foucault’s theories of identity, centered around being constituted as subjects. A modern man in France converts to Islam because the society around him has changed completely. If we were born in a different country or a different time, would we still be who we are now? If Islam took political power in the United States, would we still think and behave as we do? Submission suggest that our self is constituted by when we are born, where we are born, and the social forces at play in our society.

Works Cited

Foucault, Michel. “The subject and power | Michel Foucault Info.” Michel Foucault: Beyond Structuralism and Hermeneutics. Michel Foucault Info, 4 Jan. 2014. 29 Oct. 2015. <http://foucault.info/documents/foucault.power.en.html>.

Gutting, Gary. Foucault: A Very Short Introduction (very Short Introductions). 1st ed. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, USA, 22 Apr. 2005.

Houellebecq, Michel. Submission. United States: Farrar Straus Giroux, 20 Oct. 2015.

LDS movement on Heavenly Mother

The LDS Church acknowledges that if there is a Father in Heaven, there must be a Mother too. Their official website says:

Latter-day Saints direct their worship to Heavenly Father, in the name of Christ, and do not pray to Heavenly Mother. In this, they follow the pattern set by Jesus Christ, who taught His disciples to “always pray unto the Father in my name.” Latter-day Saints are taught to pray to Heavenly Father, but as President Gordon B. Hinckley said, “The fact that we do not pray to our Mother in Heaven in no way belittles or denigrates her.” Indeed, as Elder Rudger Clawson wrote, “We honor woman when we acknowledge Godhood in her eternal Prototype.”

–Gospel Topics Essays: Mother in Heaven
The cover of a book by Caitlin Connolly.

A book receiving a lot of attention is called A Girl’s Guide to Heavenly Mother which affirms this view which has a lot of traction among younger Saints in particular.

Latter-Day Saint apologist Jaxon Washburn has taken things much further, openly equating Heavenly Mother with Asherah in the Old Testament:

We believe in God, the Eternal Mother, and in Her Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost.In ancient Israel, Her name was Asherah, meaning “happiness,” “blessedness,” or “holy place”.The Queen of Heaven, She is the Mother of our spirits.She possesses a glorified, physical, and tangible body of flesh and bone. Exalted, divine, immortal, perfected, standing fully equal with Her Husband.She holds all power, glory, and intelligence in perfect unity with Him.We sat and listened, before this world was, as both She and the Father presented the Great Plan of Happiness.She was there as the foundations of the earth were laid, the clouds above established, and the seas divided.Every one of us is made in Her likeness and image.Her work and Her glory is to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of humanity.She hears our prayers, She loves Her children, and She readily pours out bounteous blessings upon them that turn to Her.Our theology begins with Heavenly Parents. Our highest aspiration is to be like Her and the Father.She can be found in the holy temple, in nature and the fullness of its creation, and near to our hearts whenever we need Her.The Son beckons to us all, “Behold thy Mother”. All things denote there is a Mother.#HappyMothersDayArtwork: J. Kirk Richards, “The Goddess Speaks” 2014

Image may contain: 1 person, indoor

While I expect the LDS Church to shrink in the USA, I think it will grow for some time in Africa. I wonder if this doctrine will help or hinder that growth?

Posted in LDS

A prayer in the time of plague

IT had been the best for us, O most righteous Judge, and our most merciful father, that in our wealth and quietness, and in the midst of thy manifold benefits continually bestowed upon us most unworthy sinners, we had of love hearkened to thy voice, and turned unto thee our most loving and gracious father: For in so doing, we had done the parts of good and obedient loving children, It had also been well, if at thy dreadful threats out of thy holy word continually pronounced unto us by thy servants our preachers, we had of fear, as corrigible servants, turned from our wickedness. But alas we have shewed hitherto our selves towards thee, neither as loving children (O most merciful father) neither as tolerable servants, O Lord most mighty.
Wherefore now we feel thy heavy wrath, O most righteous Judge, justly punishing us with grievous and deadly sickness and plagues; we do now confess and acknowledge, and to our most just punishment do find indeed, that to be most true, which we have so often hard threatened to us out of thy holy scriptures, the word of thy eternal verity: that thou art the same unchangeable God, of the same justice that thou wilt, and of the same power that thou canst punish the like wickedness and obstinacy of us impenitent sinners in these days, as thou hast done in all ages heretofore. But the same thy holy Scriptures, the word of thy truth, do also testify, that thy strength is not shortened but that thou canst: neither thy goodness abated but that thou wilt, help those that in their distress do flee unto thy mercies, and that thou art the same God of all, rich in mercy towards all that call upon thy name, and that thou dost not intend to destroy us utterly, but fatherly to correct us; who hast pity upon us, even when thou dost scourge us, as by thy said holy word thy gracious promises, and the examples of thy saints in thy holy Scriptures expressed for our comfort, thou hast assured us.
Grant us, O most merciful father, that we fall not into the uttermost of all mischiefs, to become worse under thy scourge, but that this thy rod may by thy heavenly grace speedily work in us the fruit and effect of true repentance, unfeigned turning and converting unto thee, and perfect amendment of our whole lives, that, as we through our impenitence do now most worthily feel thy justice punishing us, so by this thy correction we may also feel the sweet comfort of thy mercies, graciously pardoning our sins, and pitifully releasing these grievous punishments and dreadful plagues. This we crave at thy hand, O most merciful father, for thy dear son our Savior Jesus Christ’s sake. Amen.

The Predestination Controversy

Stavanger Lutheran Church in Ossian Iowa.

Norwegian Lutheran immigrants to the United States created several different denominations over the years, but the most prominent during the 19th century was the Norwegian Evangelical Lutheran Church known as The Norwegian Synod. The Synod was organized in 1853. In later decades the Synod was rocked by several theological controversies, including fights over absolution, justification, and eventually election/predestination.

    Reading literature from that time you quickly realize that the Predestination Controversy (naadevalgsstriden) was not confined to seminaries but divided entire Norwegian communities in the Midwest. Jon Gjerde puts it this way:

The controversy began among the clergy but quickly spread to the laity. Church members passionately discussed the theological questions, according to one participant, “on the streets and in the alleys, in stores and in saloons, and through a continuous flow of agitating articles [in newspapers and periodicals].” words occasionally led to fights. “They argued predestination in the saloons, with their tongues,” said one, “and settled it in the alley with their fists.” Although fisticuffs were rare, certain Norwegian congregations suffered wrenching internal strife. “The ties of old friendship broke,” remembered one man. “Neighbor did not speak to neighbor. The daughter who was married to a member of the other party became a stranger in her father’s house. Man and wife turned into dog and cat. Brothers and sisters were sundered from one  another.” (Gjerde 1997 page 118)

Bibliography

Gjerde, Jon. 1997. The Minds of the West Ethnocultural Evolution in the Rural Middle West, 1830-1917. Chapel Hill and London: The University of North Carolina Press.

Shrove Tuesday Pancakes

I found this in an old issue of Notes and Queries and thought I would pass it along:

There is a curious tradition existing in Mansfield, Woodhouse, Bulwell, and several other villages near Sherwood Forest, as to the origin of pancakes on Shrove Tuesday. The inhabitants of any of these villages will inform the questioner that when the Danes got to Linby all the Saxon men of the neighboring villages ran off into the Forest, and the Danes took the Saxon women to keep house for them. This happened just before Lent, and the Saxon women, encouraged by their fugitive lords, resolved to massacre their Danish masters on Ash Wednesday. Every woman who agreed to do this was to bake pancakes for their meal on Shrove Tuesday as a kind of pledge to fulfill her vow. This was done, and that the massacre of the Danes did take place on Ash Wednesday is a well-known historical fact.

Notes and Queries, June 4, 1859