Let me begin by quoting Radical Faith:
Today I walked out of church about a third of the way through the service. A soloist was performing "God Bless the USA." I have always found that song to be especially cloying, but when I noticed it listed in the bulletin I decided to attempt to tolerate it. And I might have managed to do just that had not one or two individuals prompted the entire congregation to stand.
The irony is I've never once noticed the congregation being prompted to stand during a solo performance of a hymn or a choral anthem lauding the teachings and sacrifice of Christ. That says something about priorities, I suppose. [Emphasis added]
My first impression here is that this particular church-goer is either a novice or attends a thoroughly dead church. If we are to assume that this essay is about an evangelical church -- the allegedly most pro-American congregations -- then it utterly rings hollow: evangelicals stand all the time, for hymns, praise, prayer, the raising of hands. Some of us might even recall leaping from our seat (as children) to "Stand Up, Stand Up For Jesus (Ye soldiers of the Cross)". That this writer even offers that this is a southern "UMC" (United Methodist Church?) in the comments thread suggests something dubious. "On fire" Christians stand for Christian hymnody -- and prayer and praise -- constantly.
But let me forgive and forget that small point.
I agree thoroughly that idolatry, whether it be that which invades Christian liturgy or that which swirls around us in any form whatsoever, is to be rebuffed and rebuked. At the very least, Christianity damns idols, or at least it should. Moreover, it is to be noted that the emphasis is on idolatry "in ANY form", irrespective of religion or political party. Idolatry is just plain bad (and I am willing to accept that many idols go undetected).
Now, let's turn to the song, God Bless The USA, that so offended our writer. Here are the lyrics from the 1984 song:
God Bless The U.S.A.
If tomorrow all the things were gone,
I’d worked for all my life.
And I had to start again,
with just my children and my wife.
I’d thank my lucky stars,
to be livin here today.
‘Cause the flag still stands for freedom,
and they can’t take that away.
And I’m proud to be an American,
where at least I know I’m free.
And I wont forget the men who died,
who gave that right to me.
And I gladly stand up,
next to you and defend her still today.
‘Cause there ain’t no doubt I love this land,
God bless the USA.
From the lakes of Minnesota,
to the hills of Tennessee.
Across the plains of Texas,
From sea to shining sea.
From Detroit down to Houston,
and New York to L.A.
Well there's pride in every American heart,
and its time we stand and say.
That I’m proud to be an American,
where at least I know I’m free.
And I wont forget the men who died,
who gave that right to me.
And I gladly stand up,
next to you and defend her still today.
‘Cause there ain’t no doubt I love this land,
God bless the USA.
And I’m proud to be and American,
where at least I know I’m free.
And I wont forget the men who died,
who gave that right to me.
And I gladly stand up,
next to you and defend her still today.
‘Cause there ain’t no doubt I love this land,
God bless the USA.
OK. Let's call it doggerel if we must. Let's call it adolescent sentiment. Let's call it trite. Let's even call it idolatry. But let us not do one thing, the very thing so many "fundamentalists" are accused of doing: Let us not take the song literally. Before I explain myself, let me quote Radical Faith again:
How could I in good conscience stand to embrace the lyrics "I'm proud to be an American" in the very same week we learned U.S. soldiers raped an Iraqi woman then murdered her and her family to cover up the crime? What spiritually unwise person planned this nonsense?
OK. Please note that Radical Faith has committed a small but thoroughly common intellectual crime: the writer has taken the lyrics literally and has projected on the singers such laughable things as naivete, blindness, over-zealousness. The writer attributes to the singers a thoroughly "my country right or wrong" sort of jingoism; the writer suggests that these folks are singing glibly about the "bad things", like rape and war, as if they were a good thing, an American thing. But no one is singing that way at all. For if these singers were indeed singing so uncritically, without a hint of wistfulness for an ideal to which America has not yet attained, then the writer must admit that the singers are thus left singing praises about America's wonders in total, like abortion rights, gay marriage, gun control, doctor-assisted suicide, stem cell research, and the use of illegal narcotics. In short, if the congregation is idolizing America, it is idolizing things I suspect Radical Faith actually celebrates too.
If my meaning is not yet clear, let me put it this way: The congregation is not singing about America as is -- as if it is perfect. It is not singing the song literally; it is singing it as metaphor, as emblem, even as poetry. It is singing about what America can be, and has been; it is singing about having the freedom to hate or love America, and not just one or the other. It is singing about a country that is obese, or stupid, or wrong; and it is thanking the heavens that there is a country where people are free to be fat, dumb and wrong, and where they are free to change those things if they wish. No one in that congregation is dancing about, drunk with awe, that America has the nuclear bomb or gay rights or thin people: it is singing gratefully that there is a place on earth where someone is free to have -- or NOT have -- those things. This may be idolatry and it may be foolish; but one thing it isn't is abject literalism. In fact, the only literalist is the writer who walked out of the offending church.
But what is perhaps the most important thing to observe is the sort of intellectual hypocrisy of it all: the writer is looking for a church that has idols the writer can accept. For surely Radical Faith is looking for a church that has God's view of America; has God's view of politics and nations and social justice and even worship. Radical Faith is interested in a progressive church, which means one given to following the ideals of the Democratic Party as handed down to the disciples of Jesus Christ from the Lord Himself. The writer is looking for a church that has its "priorities" in order. The series of comments that follows Radical Faith's essay are telling and disappointing: they all point to churches that have conformed themselves to "progressive ideals". And if we accept that Jesus Christ Himself was the first or chief progressive, and that not only churches but political parties follow His powerful example, then we are forced to conclude that religious progressives have no qualms marrying religious ideals to the activities of state. The wall of separation is a good thing, as long as one faith keeps out all others.
It is easy to walk out of a church that holds to that sort of thing.
Peace.
©Bill Gnade 2006/Contratimes - All Rights Reserved.
Technorati tags: Daily Kos, Radical Faith, Lee Greenwood, Faith, Politics, Idolatry
No comments:
Post a Comment