Faith Works 10-16-2026
Jeff Gill
Looking for the rules, or maybe just how to apply them
___
After a few weeks of public discussion about an issue, I can’t always resist the temptation to be a preacher about things. Even in a general purpose, wide-spectrum setting. So let me talk about movies for a moment, but starting with a play.
Philip Barry was a Broadway playwright during the era of O’Neill and Sherwood, Kaufman and Hart. He wrote a play for his friend Katharine Hepburn, who appeared in it on the stage, and then a movie adaptation of the modestly popular show which did very well up on the screen.
There’s a particular line I have in mind from “The Philadelphia Story" (1940), spoken by the character Mike Connor, as played by James Stewart, to heiress Tracy Lord, indelibly played by Katharine Hepburn, about dimly remembered events of the night before due to drink:
"You were extremely attractive, and as for distant and forbidding, on the contrary. But you also were a little the worse, or better, for wine, and there are rules about that.”
You may know the scene better from the musical reimagining in a Newport setting, “High Society” (1956), with Frank Sinatra as Mike the reporter, and Grace Kelly as Tracy the bride-to-be, but the key line is delivered nearly the same. After Tracy asks if she was cold and forbidding to him during her champagne haze, Mike replies:
“Not at all. On the contrary, but you were somewhat the worse — or the better — for the wine, and there are rules about such things.”
(By the way: about artificial intelligence, which so far ain’t too super. AI has tried to tell me twice over that it was C.K. Dexter Haven who said it, portrayed by Cary Grant in 1940 and Bing Crosby in 1956, but good old Dexter, who would get the bride back in the end, was simply an approving witness to the exchange. I told AI this, sternly, to which it said “of course you are correct” which makes you wonder, doesn’t it?)
Anyhow, this scene proves that even seventy, let alone eighty-six years ago, people were aware of the relationship between alcohol and consent. “There are rules about such things.”
Thank you, Mike; and thanks to Frank and Jimmy for delivering the line so sincerely. There are rules about such things. But where are these rules to be found? How do we learn them?
Obviously, not all men, and we’re talking about men here, learn these rules. The rules exist, so either they weren’t taught, or were not learned. I think back, and I have to admit: I don’t recall my father telling me this, not in so many words. It didn’t come up in church, or through the Scout troop, or in a college class. It is a subject in new student orientation now, but it wasn’t in 1978; in many professions and certifications rules such as what Mike the reporter was talking about are included in an ethics or boundary training. The jury is still out on what kind of training effectively communicates what Sinatra and Stewart seemed to know (and yes, I’m aware that there’s some question as to how well Frank applied this rule in real life).
Biblically, most preachers would say this is covered by general teachings about chastity and fidelity, although the question of consent within a marriage is still relevant. Our local legend Victoria Woodhull was both highly effective in communicating, even through Victorian era norms, and notorious in certain circles for speaking up on behalf of mutual consent even (or especially) within a marriage relationship.
Pre-marital sexual intimacy is still a fraught subject even within many religious traditions that are otherwise considered fairly conservative; a number of groups that would surprise you historically didn’t consider an engagement confirmed until the prospective bride was pregnant, which complicates this whole question.
Consent, though, is still key. This may take another essay to reassemble.
Jeff Gill is a writer, storyteller, and preacher in central Ohio; he’s counseled quite a few couples both before and after marriage. Tell him how you’d teach the young at knapsack77@gmail.com, or follow @Knapsack on X.
Jeff Gill
Looking for the rules, or maybe just how to apply them
___
After a few weeks of public discussion about an issue, I can’t always resist the temptation to be a preacher about things. Even in a general purpose, wide-spectrum setting. So let me talk about movies for a moment, but starting with a play.
Philip Barry was a Broadway playwright during the era of O’Neill and Sherwood, Kaufman and Hart. He wrote a play for his friend Katharine Hepburn, who appeared in it on the stage, and then a movie adaptation of the modestly popular show which did very well up on the screen.
There’s a particular line I have in mind from “The Philadelphia Story" (1940), spoken by the character Mike Connor, as played by James Stewart, to heiress Tracy Lord, indelibly played by Katharine Hepburn, about dimly remembered events of the night before due to drink:
"You were extremely attractive, and as for distant and forbidding, on the contrary. But you also were a little the worse, or better, for wine, and there are rules about that.”
You may know the scene better from the musical reimagining in a Newport setting, “High Society” (1956), with Frank Sinatra as Mike the reporter, and Grace Kelly as Tracy the bride-to-be, but the key line is delivered nearly the same. After Tracy asks if she was cold and forbidding to him during her champagne haze, Mike replies:
“Not at all. On the contrary, but you were somewhat the worse — or the better — for the wine, and there are rules about such things.”
(By the way: about artificial intelligence, which so far ain’t too super. AI has tried to tell me twice over that it was C.K. Dexter Haven who said it, portrayed by Cary Grant in 1940 and Bing Crosby in 1956, but good old Dexter, who would get the bride back in the end, was simply an approving witness to the exchange. I told AI this, sternly, to which it said “of course you are correct” which makes you wonder, doesn’t it?)
Anyhow, this scene proves that even seventy, let alone eighty-six years ago, people were aware of the relationship between alcohol and consent. “There are rules about such things.”
Thank you, Mike; and thanks to Frank and Jimmy for delivering the line so sincerely. There are rules about such things. But where are these rules to be found? How do we learn them?
Obviously, not all men, and we’re talking about men here, learn these rules. The rules exist, so either they weren’t taught, or were not learned. I think back, and I have to admit: I don’t recall my father telling me this, not in so many words. It didn’t come up in church, or through the Scout troop, or in a college class. It is a subject in new student orientation now, but it wasn’t in 1978; in many professions and certifications rules such as what Mike the reporter was talking about are included in an ethics or boundary training. The jury is still out on what kind of training effectively communicates what Sinatra and Stewart seemed to know (and yes, I’m aware that there’s some question as to how well Frank applied this rule in real life).
Biblically, most preachers would say this is covered by general teachings about chastity and fidelity, although the question of consent within a marriage is still relevant. Our local legend Victoria Woodhull was both highly effective in communicating, even through Victorian era norms, and notorious in certain circles for speaking up on behalf of mutual consent even (or especially) within a marriage relationship.
Pre-marital sexual intimacy is still a fraught subject even within many religious traditions that are otherwise considered fairly conservative; a number of groups that would surprise you historically didn’t consider an engagement confirmed until the prospective bride was pregnant, which complicates this whole question.
Consent, though, is still key. This may take another essay to reassemble.
Jeff Gill is a writer, storyteller, and preacher in central Ohio; he’s counseled quite a few couples both before and after marriage. Tell him how you’d teach the young at knapsack77@gmail.com, or follow @Knapsack on X.
No comments:
Post a Comment