The pacifists’ choice of ‘America the Beautiful’ over the National Anthem is causing controversy on a Mennonite campus:
The Star-Spangled Banner may yet wave over Goshen College in Indiana, but no one’s going to be singing about it.
The Mennonite campus is dropping the national anthem in favor of “America the Beautiful” before all sporting events, saying the latter song better represents the college’s religious values and pacifist tradition.
The rockets’ red glare and those bombs bursting in air — lyrics honoring an obscure naval battle during the War of 1812 — seemingly proved too violent for a college whose motto is “Healing the World, Peace by Peace.”
The school had never played “The Star-Spangled Banner” before games until last year, when it began using an instrumental version of the anthem. Administrators opted to end the practice in June, however, after some students and alumni expressed concerns about the militaristic imagery and the effect the song could have on foreign students, a school spokesman said.
Although I have serious theological disagreements with pacifism, I can respect their decision. At least they’re attempting to be consistent with their religious beliefs.
August 26th, 2011 | 4:00 pm
They may be consistent, but it is still a foolish decision.
Pacifism, in reality, actually increases the amount of violence in the world. It allows evil to increase in our fallen world.
August 26th, 2011 | 4:31 pm
Agreed, Aaron. Consider this: Paul admonished believers to submit to lawful government, for it was the duty of governments before God to punish crimes and protect the people “by the sword.” If we accept the axioms of strict pacifism, the primary means by which lawful governments may enforce their authority is no longer morally licit. So, governments would cease to function and they would be charged with preforming morally illicit acts by God. Logical and theological absurdity, but this recognition that governments must use force is also a major contributing factor for the disengagement of some Christian pacifist communities from the public square, which ultimately impracticable and leads to situations where one actually has to sometimes shirk one’s Christian duty by withdrawing from communal life.
For my part, my respect for honest pacifism has waned as it becomes increasingly clear to me that to apply its tenets consistently, one has to bypass one’s God-given moral sense, in cases like protecting one’s family. I acknowledged that honest pacifists–not cowards hiding behind pacifism–have good intentions, but it all hangs on good intentions. This perverse meekness cannot answer sin. These Mennonites forget the bloody nature of the Cross, that God’s justice was reconciled to his mercy at a price, not abrogated by bloodless compromise. The Prince of Peace bought peace by blood.
August 26th, 2011 | 4:31 pm
I’m still shocked and in awe after reviewing the comments to your On the Square post on nuclear weapons.
I’m not a paifist either but this seems to be a refreshing change of pace. I’ll also add that, even though I’m not a pacifist, I’m glad other people are. It’s a powerful witness that serves to rein us all in a bit.
August 26th, 2011 | 4:55 pm
These Mennonites forget the bloody nature of the Cross, that God’s justice was reconciled to his mercy at a price, not abrogated by bloodless compromise. The Prince of Peace bought peace by blood.
I am not a theologian, but this sounds very wrong to me. What about the teachings of Jesus to lover your enemies, or turn the other cheek? What about the beatitudes? What about Jesus refusing to allow resistance to those coming to take him to be crucified? Did Jesus ever justify violence, even in self-defense? I don’t think the bloody, violent nature of the crucifixion can ever be used to justify violence. The good of martyrdom does not justify the killing.
This is a very difficult question, but did God want Jesus to be nailed to a cross? I don’t think so.
August 26th, 2011 | 5:13 pm
Goshen College is indeed consistant. The third year of college is spent in mission work. The college imports poor indigenous students from in and outside the US. Much of all students’ tuition is supported by the home congregations. The school enrollls students who are culturally different from the Mennonite student body. Not just foriegn students but kids who are promilitary and who justify war. Why? perhaps to allow all students to engage in intellectual discussions.
August 26th, 2011 | 6:10 pm
Re: David Marcoe “The Prince of Peace bought peace by blood.”
Agree with David Nickol. The Peace was brought by the blood of a Sacrificial Lamb, not the violence of the sword.
Twisting the sacrificial metaphor is perverse.
The myth of American Military Exceptionalism is now suffused with Christian metaphors. Which is unfortunate…
August 26th, 2011 | 8:21 pm
SteveM,
Sadly, Christendom has been infusing military exceptionalism with Christian metaphors ever since Constantine killed his enemies with the sign of the cross on his shield.
I say good for Indiana College for being not only true to their Mennonite heritage, but also true to the Christian faith.
August 26th, 2011 | 9:38 pm
In the great tradition of Gandhi and John Lennon, all Goshen College is saying is give peace a chance. Interestingly, Goshen is located in a region that witnessed hostilities during that awful War of 1812, during which that war mongering anthem was written. In honor of this fact I would suggest that the Goshen marching band perform a rousing version of “God Save the Queen” before every college sporting event (i.e, badminton or croquet; Goshen being averse to the violence endemic to football or hockey).
August 27th, 2011 | 3:58 am
I’m not sure why you have serious theological disagreements with pacifism, Joe. You can have serious philosophical or pragmatic disagreements, but pacifism really was a part of Christianity from its Founder. Most of the just war doctrine flowed from Christianity’s involvement with secular politics.
I think the problem is that to hold Christian Pacifism requires way less worldliness than we all are comfortable with. To have that level of faith in that we are part of a heavenly kingdom and that it is real, and we are aliens and strangers here that we can turn the other cheek is such a high bar to leap over.
To be fair though, it has to be a faith that ignores all political spectrums. Some people embrace pacifism to add a gloss over to little more than “I dislike american foreign policy.” It has to be one that thinks “Put not your trust in princes, nor in any son of man.” as well as “…not by might nor by power, but by my Spirit says the Lord of Hosts.”
I’m not sure such a radical detachment from the world is possible for many of us, so we do the best we can and follow the most just system we can follow. Things like this humble you a bit.
August 27th, 2011 | 5:09 am
David Nichol
How do you gloss Luke 22:36?
“Then he said to them, “But now whoever has a wallet must take it along, and his traveling bag, too. And the one who has no sword must sell his coat and buy one.”
The following verse, with its reference to the “two swords,” has cited endlessly on Church/State relations.
August 27th, 2011 | 10:36 am
I am not a theologian, but this sounds very wrong to me. What about the teachings of Jesus to lover your enemies, or turn the other cheek? What about the beatitudes?…I don’t think the bloody, violent nature of the crucifixion can ever be used to justify violence. The good of martyrdom does not justify the killing.
And you miss the point of the metaphor, though perhaps that is my lack of clarity on the point. I’m not using the Crucifixion to justify violence. I agree that would be perverse, that the freely given gift of God’s mercy should he used as rationale for such. No, what I am saying is that God’s love–all the things you point out–are present, but his justice is not absent. In order for mercy to be shown, blood had to be paid. The Lamb was lead to the slaughter. In other words, evil always exacts a cost. The question is, who will pay?
Christian pacifism emphasizes the love of God at the expense of his justice. It sees the Yeshua of the New Testament but ignores Yahweh of the Old Testament. But God can’t simply ignore sin as if it didn’t exist. In the Cross, we see both his love and his judgement. One can’t be had without the other.
Instead of thinking of a large abstraction of war, let’s think about the microcosm of self-defense. If I someone attempts to harm to my family, I will attempt to defend them, probably without giving much thought. I can think of few things more intuitive or axiomatic, crossing across all the cultural boundaries. The violence of the situation is the result of sin and the state of a fallen world, but the sin is not mine in obeying my duty to defend, but in the freely taken action of the one attacking, with the price being the violence of the conflict. In mercy, I may limit the amount of force to only what I have to use the end the situation (assuming attempts to deescalate have failed), but that may be deadly force. Just war, then, is a communal exercise of self-defense.
It is interesting that St. Augustine, who is the “father of just war theory,” defined just war as an act of love through a rather complicated argument, but it boils down the the fact that instead of seeing the goal of war as crushing one’s enemy, it is instead the act of restraining the evil of one’s enemy (and defending one’s home) until one achieves victory and a restoration of peace ends that evil.
What about Jesus refusing to allow resistance to those coming to take him to be crucified? Did Jesus ever justify violence, even in self-defense?
Did he not horsewhip the money-changers in the temple?
That he came to “fulfill the Law” is enough to show continuity with his commands and judgements from the Old Testament. And Jesus said that his first coming was to save, but his second coming would be to judge. He spoke a great deal about how those who had not come to salvation would eventually be judged. Again, we see the reconciliation of his love and his judgement.
August 27th, 2011 | 10:53 am
To add: I do not argue there are situations where non-violence is perfectly appropriate and that one should seek peace. My reading of the “turn the other cheek” passage from the Sermon on the Mount, taking cultural context and rhetorical mechanisms of oral transmission into account, is that one should not not strike out for the sake of one’s pride.
August 27th, 2011 | 10:54 am
America the Beautiful is a better song anyway. For one thing it spares a verse for “heroes proved in liberating strife” but it is about more then war. It also talks about pioneering “pilgrim’s feet whose stern impassive tread’, and good political philosophy,”liberty in law”, and scenery “purple mountains majesty.” We don’t have to be pacifist to think America shouldn’t be Sparta and shouldn’t think only about war. For another, Star-spangled banner is about a military humiliation. It says not only that our capital could be captured by a petty raid(that happened to Frederick the Great once too so at least we’re in good company) but that we are willing to make a big to-do over repelling the raid for two hundred years. The song survives by tradition and because it is beautiful but the backstory takes away from the song.
For a third, America the Beautiful is a very beautiful song.
In any case what do you expect of Mennonites? Why not be surprised that Jews don’t like BLTs?
August 27th, 2011 | 11:04 am
@SteveM
The myth of American Military Exceptionalism is now suffused with Christian metaphors. Which is unfortunate…
And what relation does my argument have to “American Military Exceptionalism”? I made no mention of America, its military history, or its policies. Agree or disagree, my statements can be read without any relation to those things. It’s is a complete non-sequitur.
@GregM
Sadly, Christendom has been infusing military exceptionalism with Christian metaphors ever since Constantine killed his enemies with the sign of the cross on his shield.
Augustine of Hippo–the author of City of God–is called the father of just war theory.
The history of how the Church dealt with war is complicated. Pacifism was widely taught, but not universally, and the early Church Fathers wrestled with the fact that there were Roman soldiers who were faithful Christians and yet saw no contradiction between their military profession and their faith. So, before you reduce things to simplistic terms, understand there is a complex history of wrestling with issues of war and violence Christian theology and philosophy.
August 27th, 2011 | 12:22 pm
Of course, the violence implicit in the national anthem is that of self-defense, not of “war-mongering.” The rockets’ red glare and the bombs bursting in air were being fired by the Royal Navy intent of sacking and burning Baltimore. And the fourth verse cites
“O! thus be it ever, when free men shall stand
Between their loved home and the war’s desolation.”
That is, the song praises those who protect their homes from war, not those who bring war to others’ homes.
August 27th, 2011 | 1:17 pm
Holy Scripture provides, as usual, as much material for proof-texting by the one side as by the other. But the continuing revelation that we receive through the mediation of the Magisterium is unambiguous: the Church has never taught that pacificism is obligatory for Christians and indeed has often supported military endeavors in centuries past.
Some years back, under a similar impetus, the British decided to stop singing the second verse of “God Save the Queen,” the one which encourages the Almighty to “Confound their politics, frustrate their knavish tricks.” A tremendous loss, really; those words were (not surprisingly) among the most quoted in the entire anthem.
August 27th, 2011 | 2:09 pm
@ Jason: “We don’t have to be pacifist to think America shouldn’t be Sparta and shouldn’t think only about war.’ Who says America thinks only about war, other thanFidel Castro, Michael Moore, and Howard Zinn “For another, Star-spangled banner is about a military humiliation. It says not only that our capital could be captured by a petty raid(that happened to Frederick the Great once too so at least we’re in good company) but that we are willing to make a big to-do over repelling the raid for two hundred years.” 1. It was not a “petty raid” — an entire British army marched on the capital 2. The “raid” was not repelled 3. The national anthem is about the seige of Fort McHenry, not the destruction of the the capital. Instead of showing remarkably unfunny videos about the War of 1812 the editors should do their readers a favor and educate them on their nation’s history, to the extent that they care about such petty things.
August 27th, 2011 | 4:04 pm
Resh, that verse sounds a little pathetic after the loss of India and Ireland, I think…
August 27th, 2011 | 4:58 pm
To bring this back to the orginal article, my understanding, as a backslidden Mennonite, of historical Anabaptist pacifism is that they mostly understood that as pacificists they had little to say to the political situation of their day. They understood themselves to be the “quiet ones in the land”, people who spoke to the spiritual issues of life and not the political. And when they felt that the national or regional politics were infringing on their ability to live their faith as they understood it, many moved to a different country where they thought they might have the freedom to do so. Had the majority of early Anabaptists decided to trend toward Pilgrem Marpeck instead of Menno Simmons (Marpekians, Marpeckillians????) I think we would have seen an even bigger emphasis on not participating in what was considered the secluar realm. A whole host of influences including affluence seems to have changed this and today, in my estimation, much of Mennonite pacificism is closer to secular pacificism than historical Anabaptist pacificism, hence the foray into the political realm. I’m sure Goshen College has a few history professors that would take issue with my analysis or perhaps rather my experiential history. There has been some discussion among Mennonites of squaring political activism with their original understanding of pacifism. I’m not very close to those discussion so I’m not sure if they have made any headway on that score but even if they haven’t it hasn’t stopped many Mennonites from wading into the political fray, something to do with being culturally relevant I think.
August 27th, 2011 | 6:39 pm
I’m not sure why you have serious theological disagreements with pacifism, Joe.
What’s the difference between pacifism vs. appeasement?
August 27th, 2011 | 7:36 pm
If you read Mennonite history, you’ll soon realise that they have willingly paid the price for their pacifism. My grandfather was murdered by the Soviets in the 1930′s, and he wasn’t the only one. I don’t think that they have forgotten the cost of following Christ.
Of course, this is news because Goshen allowed the anthem for a year. I guess our citizenship is in heaven :)
August 28th, 2011 | 7:03 am
[...] Indiana College Thinks the National Anthem is Too Violent. [...]
August 28th, 2011 | 3:32 pm
Of course, the violence implicit in the national anthem is that of self-defense, not of “war-mongering.” The rockets’ red glare and the bombs bursting in air were being fired by the Royal Navy intent of sacking and burning Baltimore.
A good pacifist does not defend himself.
He lets his neighbors defend him instead.
August 28th, 2011 | 3:42 pm
Blake:
Not sure how that relates to my quote. Was Stephen appeasing when he was martyred? Or Peter? I think theologically the early church embraced pacifism when it couldn’t co-exist with the local culture. The problem is that pacifism doesn’t work for the larger secular culture.
August 28th, 2011 | 4:19 pm
@ Jason: “We don’t have to be pacifist to think America shouldn’t be Sparta and shouldn’t think only about war.’ Who says America thinks only about war, other thanFidel Castro, Michael Moore, and Howard Zinn”
The criticism was directed at the song specifically not at America. It was pointing out that America the Beautiful was more rounded in it’s praise of America’s achievements and in any case if we are going to have a song about a specific military event as the anthem we should pick one that does us a little more credit.
August 28th, 2011 | 4:34 pm
1. It was not a “petty raid” — an entire British army marched on the capital 2. The “raid” was not repelled 3. The national anthem is about the seige of Fort McHenry, not the destruction of the the capital. Instead of showing remarkably unfunny videos about the War of 1812 the editors should do their readers a
Um, no. It was not an “entire British army”. An “entire British army” would have had about thirty to fifty thousand men, horse, foot, and guns plus support: At Waterloo they had about 70,000 though about half of those were reluctant foreign troops picked up here and there. In this campaign the only “army” was about 5,000 infantry. And Fort McHenry was part of the defensive works of Baltimore which was attacked in the same campaign as an afterthought to the attack on Washington. The attack on Baltimore was doomed to fail as the British did not have any heavy artillery along. The whole incident was a petty raid by European standards of the time and by the standards of the Civil War. There was no way they could have taken Baltimore and if they had taken Fort McHenry it would have been a minor incident. They also could not have taken it simply by shelling it from the sea; shore defenses at the time had an inherent advantage over attacking warships; forts cannot sink and warships can burn.
If it had been an “entire British army” it would have been intended to occupy territory. Instead it was simply intended to do as much damage as they could get away with then leave when defenses started firming. Defenses started firming at Baltimore so they left for easier targets.
August 28th, 2011 | 4:44 pm
In any case, what precisely is the big deal. Are we complaining that they don’t serve coffee at Mormon colleges?
All denominations are going to have their quirks and taking offense because one denomination’s quirks seems to insult another’s is ridiculous. Mennonites are pacifists; hence they don’t like music about war. Perhaps you could remember what Paul said about not eating meat offered to idols in front of someone who might take offense?
August 28th, 2011 | 6:02 pm
[...] Continue… 0 [...]
August 28th, 2011 | 6:37 pm
@Jason,
Thank God for Wikipedia — it allows for quick access to misinformation for people who don’t have a basic undertstanding of military history, not that it prevents you from sounding off about the nature of a British “army” circa 1812-14. Again, Fort McHenry and the writing of the national anthem had nothing to do with your so-called “petty raid” on Washington. The 5000 British soldiers involved in your “petty raid” were veterans of the Napoleonic Wars and understood the definition of an “army.” Stick to theology, although if your knowledge of history is any guide, your probably distorting that as well. Now let’s get rid of that evil national anthem and all sing Kumbaya….
August 28th, 2011 | 9:09 pm
“America the Beautiful” mentions God and implies American exceptionalism, which could also insult foreign students. And that bit about the stern, impassioned stress of the pilgrim feet beating a path across the wilderness might be taken the wrong way by American Indians.
Alabaster cities are white, and who knows what could be made of that?
Then, too, I suspect that in:
O beautiful for heroes proved
In liberating strife.
Who more than self their country loved
that the liberating strife might have been a bit bellicose. (The original version was:
O beautiful for glory-tale
Of liberating strife
When once and twice,
for man’s avail
Men lavished precious life!)
Okay, so how about “Columbia, Gem of the Ocean”?
“Thy mandates make heroes assemble,
When Liberty’s form stands in view;
Thy banners make tyranny tremble,
When borne by the red, white, and blue,”
yrs. in musical submission.
August 28th, 2011 | 9:10 pm
“America the Beautiful” mentions God and implies American exceptionalism, which could also insult foreign students. And that bit about the stern, impassioned stress of the pilgrim feet beating a path across the wilderness might be taken the wrong way by American Indians.
Alabaster cities are white, and who knows what could be made of that?
Then, too, I suspect that in:
O beautiful for heroes proved
In liberating strife.
Who more than self their country loved
that the liberating strife might have been a bit bellicose. (The original version was:
O beautiful for glory-tale
Of liberating strife
When once and twice,
for man’s avail
Men lavished precious life!)
Okay, so how about “Columbia, Gem of the Ocean”?
“Thy mandates make heroes assemble,
When Liberty’s form stands in view;
Thy banners make tyranny tremble,
When borne by the red, white, and blue,”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=siHfQGn3JTs
yrs. in musical submission.
August 29th, 2011 | 8:40 am
MichaelPS:
My take on that verse is that the meaning is uncertain. The Greek word can mean, generally, “sword” (i.e. long, bladed weapon), or it can mean, specifically, something analagous to a machete (heavy single-edged blade useful as a tool). The context of the that passage is insufficient, so it must be interpreted in light of Jesus’s other statements about how to treat your enemies. Either interpretation is possible, but which seems more likely? Given the beatitudes and the later behavior of the Apostles when persecuted, is it more likely that he told them to take a tool or a weapon?
And I think focusing on verse 36 misses the point of the passage, in the same way that the Disciples do in verse 38 (and earlier in verse 24). Jesus has just told them that he will be betrayed and counted among the transgressors, so the disciples argue about who is greater and focus on their equipment. One can, I think, detect a little exasperation in Jesus’s “It is enough” in verse 38.
August 29th, 2011 | 8:59 am
We could always go back to “Chester.”
Let tyrants shake their iron rod,
And Slav’ry clank her galling chains,
We fear them not, we trust in God,
New England’s God forever reigns.
…
The Foe comes on with haughty Stride;
Our troops advance with martial noise,
Their Vet’rans flee before our Youth,
And Gen’rals yield to beardless Boys.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chester_(song)
August 29th, 2011 | 5:21 pm
“In any case, what precisely is the big deal. Are we complaining that they don’t serve coffee at Mormon colleges? ”
I didn’t read a complaint or the making of a big deal in the post.
August 30th, 2011 | 4:37 pm
Not sure how that relates to my quote. Was Stephen appeasing when he was martyred? Or Peter?
Real pacifism includes being willing to sacrifice not only your own body but also your firstborn son’s body.
Sacrificing your own body for what you believe is noble. Being willing to sacrifice everyone else along with you? Not so much.
The reason so many national anthems are violent is because the most basic function of a state is defense.
Pacifists are “free riders”.
August 31st, 2011 | 12:42 am
Blake,
You might be describing some pacifists accurately, but Garry and Leftie are right that those groups who have identified themselves as pacifist have powerfully witnessed to Christian truth. Quakers, Mennonites, the Amish, Christians before Constantine—all are pretty pacifist.
August 31st, 2011 | 7:15 am
You might be describing some pacifists accurately, but Garry and Leftie are right that those groups who have identified themselves as pacifist have powerfully witnessed to Christian truth. Quakers, Mennonites, the Amish, Christians before Constantine—all are pretty pacifist.
Just pointing out that pacifism is not socially harmless.
Of course I believe they have the right to their conscience. Even if that means they’re doing something that would destroy society if everyone did it. But don’t think their right of conscience is any less socially costly than other, more controversial rights of conscience. If the pacifists had been in the majority, there would be no Jews left in the world today.
August 31st, 2011 | 9:23 pm
“If the pacifists had been in the majority, there would be no Jews left in the world today”
Perhaps. Perhaps not. Pacifism is an act of faith that most early Christians understood to be part of Christianity. Perhaps they were wrong, but perhaps not.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact