Michal's objection was that it was unbefitting a king to be girded with a linen ephod, a tightly fitting garment, which left him free to exert himself in the dance. It was regarded by Michal as an act of renunciation of royal splendor, as it was a dress worn even by a child when admitted to service in a priest's family (1 Samuel 2:18). Clearly David meant to rank himself for the time among the humblest servitors of the ark.
There is nothing in the text to make one think she was turning an "adulterer" out of her bed. His casting aside his heavy royal robes --- the equivalenmt of the papal Cappa Magna --- was unquestionably done as an act of religious homage, his attitudes and dress being symbolic of humility, ardor, thankfulness, and devotion.
I feel sorry for Michal. David laid aside his robes as a symbol that, though he was royalty, because of his joy in the Lord he was content to wear the common garment of the lowest servant of the temple. I think her objection was not to his nudity (he would not have been nude, in any case) but to his humility.
Look. Sr. Cristina was not doing anything lewd. Her body language was both nunnish (those big clomping schoolmarm shoes) and childish (the waving and giggling). It's not like she was even gyrating or jiggling, let alone grinding and twerking. Ladies in cake mix commercials are lascivious compared to that little Sicilian sister.
And look again. This would be scandalous if it were presented illegitimately as liturgical music (I speak as one of the founding members of our parish Schola Latina! I can't stand Marty Haugen! So there!)--- I'm completely WITH your James McMillan --- but it's not liturgy you're seeing here, it's evangelization.
Lewd? Inappropriate? Are you kidding? The very first step in evangelization is to show people you have a heart, a soul, a God-given human personality that appeals to THEIRS and that respects THEIRS. An open countenance, a cry of recognition, a word in your own language.
This Sr. Cristina has shown she speaks the "language" of pop rock very well, and she has come to meet the rockers and rappers in. their. world. That blasts down walls and opens hearts. If that doesn't open the door of Evangelization, what does?
Nuff not. I'm out of steam. I'm going to bed with --- thanks to our Cristina -- a smile. One for you, too, my dear fellow Musica Sacra dsc.
“First of all, your interpretation deprecating David”
I did not offer an interpretation. I quoted the Bible.
“since you repeat Michal’s slander that he was “naked” (some translations say “half-naked” or “lightly clad”)-— Michal’s interpretation”
Saint Jerome, who had access to resources completely unavailable to those who came centuries later, used a Latin word that is translated in the Douay as “naked.”
“when actually he was wearing a linen ephod”
What is the source for that, please?
“Clearly David meant to rank himself for the time among the humblest servitors of the ark. There is nothing in the text to make one think she was turning an “adulterer” out of her bed.”
Those statements rest on your assertion that the Douay is guilty of terminological inexactitude. That remains to be demonstrated.
“Look. Sr. Cristina was not doing anything lewd.”
Yes, she was.
“Her body language was both nunnish.”
From your perspective. Not from mine. And no, I do not have a “thing” for nuns.
“Ladies in cake mix commercials are lascivious compared to that little Sicilian sister.”
A famous pornography performer was once the model housewife on the Ivory Soap Box.
“but it’s not liturgy you’re seeing here, it’s evangelization.”
All the objections to “Christian rock” apply equally well—no, they are even more appropriate—here.
If we are to view it as evangelization, then my objection would be that it is faulty evangelization, in that it presents something as a part of Christianity which most certainly is not.
“The very first step in evangelization is to show people you have a heart, a soul, a God-given human personality that appeals to THEIRS and that respects THEIRS.”
I disagree most strongly. From the examples of the apostles, and of Our Lord Himself, I have come to think that the first step in evangelization is to show people that you have something completely outside their experience, something transcendent, something miraculous. Magnificent cathedrals were for centuries a part of that.
“An open countenance, a cry of recognition, a word in your own language.”
Sorry, but that seems more like marketing to me. Evangelization is not selling. It has to be more than that, or it fails to represent this astounding, miraculous, baffling, amazing faith as it is. Or at least as close as we can get to that.
“This Sr. Cristina has shown she speaks the “language” of pop rock very well, and she has come to meet the rockers and rappers in. their. world.”
And while she is evangelizing them, what about the millions of other listeners? Can’t you guess what the effects of that will be?
“That blasts down walls and opens hearts.”
Not in my experience. Sorry. In my experience it leads quickly to a place where the best thing you can do is to shake the dust from your feet.
“If that doesn’t open the door of Evangelization, what does?”
The Holy Spirit? The hope of resurrection unto reward, prayers of Patriarchs, predictions of Prophets, preaching of Apostles, faith of Confessors, purity of holy Virgins, deeds of righteous men?
You know—the way it was done until Satan’s successes in the mid-twentieth century.
It just occurred to me…just a minute, I have some boilerplate…
Selection.TypeText Text:=“Ironically, decent people are often slowest to see the perfidy that lurks in a scumbag’s heart.”
Perhaps you are also slow to see the evil in things like this. (Which would reflect well on you.)