WEB EXCLUSIVE: I am making peace with the national anthem
by Sheldon C. GoodPrint Article Email to a Friend
My alma mater, Goshen (Ind.) College, rolled out its new brand, "Healing the World, Peace by Peace," in spring 2009 while I was a senior.
I attended the "peace by peace" re-branding celebration, and like everyone else that day, I wrote on a human-size piece of white cardboard. My proclamation read: "I am making peace with graduating." Now, my card would say: "I am making peace with the national anthem."
On Jan. 22, 2010 (the same day in 1917 that President Woodrow Wilson of the still neutral United States called for "peace without victory" in Europe), Goshen unveiled its landmark decision to play the national anthem before athletic events. Out of hospitality, the athletic department will decide when to play an instrumental version of "The Star-Spangled Banner" starting spring 2010. Goshen joined Bethel College, North Newton, Kan., and Bluffton (Ohio) University as the only Mennonite Church USA colleges to play the anthem.
I agree with Goshen College President James E. Brenneman on most topics. I think he's the right leader at the right time for Goshen College. Similar to the multiplicity of voices among Mennonites, Brenneman and I share the same core values, and mostly similar beliefs, but we sometimes differ in practice. And on this practice, we disagree.
With its national anthem decision, Brenneman said, "One of the greatest U.S. freedoms is that we can express our faith and love of country in different ways, and we recognize that Christians differ in how to do that." Brenneman understands the pluralistic society we live in and acknowledges various expressions of our greatest faith traditions. But there's a moral difference between patriotism and acquiescence to societal norms. Rather than redefine what Brenneman calls "an immediate barrier," Goshen's unprecedented decision shows allegiance to our nation over our God, even if it is followed with prayer.
For one, Goshen's decision reaffirms the age-old notion that peacemakers are passive. Though the college notes that administrators and faculty discussed the national anthem in September 2008, the issue became a national phenomenon in November when Mike Gallagher, a syndicated conservative talk-host, urged listeners to contact the college and oppose its position. Regional and national media picked up the story, and Goshen received hundreds of phone calls and e-mails (most asked the college to change its position).
That fall, I recall discussing the national anthem at length with my housemates. We were flabbergasted that it got so much attention. There was no news to report. The college didn't alter its stance, and we didn't anticipate any changes to come. After all, we thought, Goshen College values compassionate peacemaking and global citizenship.
For all the flack students give Goshen, the college teaches students its core values for a reason
—so that they can be lived out even after graduation. Christ-centeredness, compassionate peacemaking, servant leadership, global citizenship, and passionate learning uniquely define Goshen's mission. While people fulfill them differently, everyone agrees they’re at Goshen's core. And I am grateful to Goshen College for teaching me how to embody these core values.
A personal experience during the 2008 presidential election allowed me to testify on behalf of these affirmed core values. Since I was too young (by a few months) to vote in 2004, I found myself a part of what CNN termed the "league of first-time voters." And along with six of my classmates, I was about to make peace with CNN.
Like every other morning my junior year, I hopped out of bed around 9am and trekked across campus for class. A communication and business student, my understanding of the power of the media was about to change. Later that day, I had a conversation with six fellow students and Rick Sanchez—an Emmy-winning CNN journalist—as well as approximately 2 million viewers around the world.
Sanchez noticed a particularly unique demographic of students: Mennonites who don't shy away from engaging issues of faith and politics. That's not to say, though, that we acquiesce to our country's traditional military-industrial complex. Rather, as I said that day, we should envision our dance between engagement and disengagement of earthly things not as "unpatriotic" but as "more than patriotic." Because yes, we are citizens of the United States— and this world—but more importantly, we are also followers of Jesus Christ, who daily live into God's reign here on earth.
While on CNN, I unfortunately forgot to attribute my ideology to its source, J.R. Burkholder, a retired religion professor at Goshen College. If I had more time, I would've schooled Sanchez on more of Burkholder's thoughts. Burkholder once wrote that, "For the pacifist, citizenship in a particular nation-state is just not that important. She cares less about national interests than about the well-being of the people of all nations." And pacifists, Burkholder said, "consciously adopt a more global worldview than most Americans. They wear tribal identifications lightly and see themselves as global citizens."
So our core value of peacemaking runs congruently with the value of global citizenship. Though one's national faithfulness is traditionally linked to support of the military, God calls us to carry our patriotism lightly.
Keith Graber-Miller, a professor of Bible, religion and philosophy at Goshen College, wrote in the summer 2007 issue of the Goshen College Bulletin, "Some Christians have too fully imbibed and embraced American patriotism, too uncritically accepting the rhetoric of the (Christian) right, while others have perhaps too comfortably embraced the left or settled for the complacency of relatively obscure and secure small-town Midwest America."
As my classmates and I told Sanchez on CNN, Christians can be citizens of both our earthly and heavenly worlds. Yes, God calls us, as Christians, to our homeland, but not at the expense of going up allegiance to God. As Graber-Miller explained, we are "first and foremost disciples of Christ and citizens of God’s reign, then citizens of the world, and finally citizens of a given country."
For me, allegiance to God and our world trump any patriotic duty. Simply praying after listening to our nation's fight song does not do justice. While at athletic events, why not just have a moment of silence, with a backdrop of the United States flag and a United Nations flag side-by-side? That would be more-than-patriotic rather than unpatriotic.
So the question becomes: how might we draw on the best traditions of all three allegiances (country, world, God)? Perhaps, it is through compassionate-peacemaking as global citizens. Because in a violent world, Jesus, our Prince of Peace, has a message of peace that is ordinarily radical.
"Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God," Jesus says in Matthew 5:9. And Jesus isn't just referring to passive peacemakers, or even people who just get along well together. He embodied shalom, peace, with all peoples, tribes, and nations. And Jesus, therefore, invited us into shalom – in both our interpersonal relationships and international diplomacy.
Furthermore, globally-minded Christians can offer Jesus' peaceful message to all people by being what Burkholder termed "more-than-patriotic." Yes, we are citizens of the United States. But Jesus called us to a greater shalom, one that does not draw borders, and ultimately owns no earthly boundaries. And because of that, we can challenge each other, listen to those who believe differently than us, and all the while, maintain humility and respect as we engage in dialogue on issues of faith and politics.
So I respectfully disagree with Goshen's decision to use the national anthem as a gesture of patriotic hospitality. Because we are, as the college affirms, global citizens who make peace in all its forms.
I understand President Brenneman—who I agree with most of the time—believes that playing the national anthem "offers a welcoming gesture to many visiting our athletic events ..." (He interestingly makes no mention of current and prospective students' interest in the anthem.) And I know that the college has engaged in plenty of dialogue around this topic, which I regrettably am not present for.
But I cannot support the college's decision. After all, it's a Mennonite institution that declares that peace is not only the absence of war or hostility but the presence of "justice, openness, shalom, common ground, understanding, and stewardship" (cited by Goshen's peacebypeace.com). And though I am encouraged by a clear and wonderful diversity of voices on campus (meaning, less dominantly Mennonite), I cannot personally affirm this decision.
In the book of Romans, Paul suggests that our hope lies in our humble allegiance to Jesus alone. "Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your minds, so that you may discern what is the will of God—what is good and acceptable and perfect," Paul wrote in Romans 12:2.
Brenneman suggests that perhaps refraining from playing our nation's patriotic war-time anthem qualifies for nonconforming and renewing our minds. He believes that "at this time in Goshen's history, we need a lot more radical yea-sayers," and that the college needs "to create a culture of assent alongside our historic culture of dissent.”
It sounds like Brenneman is attempting to encourage pluralism through our most nationalistic fight song. But expanded Christ-centered global citizenship and peacemaking cannot be realized through American assimilation. We can, however, renew our minds by striving daily to live into Jesus' radical call to healing and hope.
Sheldon C. Good is a communications and media assistant at Sojourners in Washington, DC. He invites any and all responses as a continuation of the national anthem discussion. Email him at shelds3@gmail.com.
Current Stories
Articles
- The push and pull of faith
- Supper club, Keith Wilson and the twigs of grace
- Young adults: We stand amazed in their presence
- Suffering in the dark night
- Meditating on the run
- An Ethiopian Mennonite shares the pulpit
- Revealing prayers
- Praying for my kids
News stories, digests and Meno Acontecer
- Mennonite health care providers and 'Googlies'
- News update: Franconia Conference dismisses staff
- Michael King named new dean of EMS
- Conference affirms teachings on sexuality
- Executive Board considers conflict needs
- WEB EXCLUSIVE: I am making peace with the national anthem
- What it takes to be an 'environmental wacko'
- MC USA consultant suggests sweeping changes
- Mennonite educators encouraged to help students 'step out of boat'
- Chinese church grows tenfold after earthquake
- Denominational ministry team organizes
- News briefs - February, 2010
- What's next for African-American Mennonites?
- Mennonite army major a misnomer
- Peter Dyck leaves legacy of service
- Children work alongside Mennonite youth
- Mennonite Olympian has a heart of gold
- MEDA sees peace dividend in youth program
- ¡Bienvenidos al Meno Acontecer de Marzo, 2010!
- Educación Menonita para nuestros jóvenes
- IBA entrena tutores en Harrisonburg, VA
- Los Tutores de IBA se reunieron en Aibonito, PR
- La Junta de Directores de MEA se reúne
- Ya viene el censo ¡Hágase contar!
- Historia Misional en Argentina
- Una meditación bíblica ...
- De nuestros lectores y colaboradores - 2ª parte
Columns
- A pastor's plan
- Hearts broken and exalted
- Becoming e-families but not bodies in vats
- First things first
- Buying stuff for your avatar
- Almost Mennonite
- The young adult effect
- Thinking clearly about abortion, again
Readers Say
- How to read the Bible
- A seventh membership change
- Another membership change
- Could join a Baptist church
- War and abortion both violence
- Learned two things
- Appreciation for Shenk
- Peace through tourism?
- Jordan no oasis of peace
- Christmas economics
- A gripe
Subscribe
Thanks for the article! I agree with you. Also I thought it was very well-written.
Thanks for such a well-written article! I find this a lot more thought-provoking and positive than simply joining the Facebook group of folks who disagree with Goshen's decision.
Thank you Sheldon for writing this. I genuinely appreciated the thought and tone of your article. I am not a constituent of Goshen and don't have any stake in the outcome of this controversy. I am primarily interested in it for what it reveals about deeper assumptions and biases that exist in MC USA. In particular, I have been concerned about how the Goshen constituency's conversation on this topic may incidentally alienate their MC USA brothers and sisters who may have slightly different assumptions and biases on the topic. Far more critical than whether Goshen plays the anthem or not is whether or not we employ principles of peacemaking in the actual dialogue. I felt that in this article you gently and straightforwardly articulated your perspective on the matter without making dramatic accusations against Goshen that would implicitly put down many other people. For my part, I thank you for that. I do have my problems with what you wrote. I don't like how you referred to Goshen's decision as an act of "patriotic hospitality." I don't think playing the anthem has anything to do with Goshen College being patriotic. I see it as an act of hospitality (from the highly peace-minded institution of Goshen College) towards patriots. The Goshen constituency's critiques of this decision seem to devalue, even condemn, acts of hospitality towards patriots, as if that hospitality were an act of affirmation of their beliefs rather than an affirmation of their humanity. So I think that while patriotism is a dubious Christian value, hospitality (radical hospitality that extends even to our "enemies") ought to be exalted as a Christian value. My next problem is your characterization of the anthem as a "fight song." Any expression of nationalism (or of allegiance of any kind, including religious ones) can be used to incite people to righteous violence against an enemy. I do not believe that the anthem lyrics specifically call Americans to war and disagree with it being labeled a "fight song." I understand that it has probably been used many times over as a tool to inspire loyalty and solidarity in times of war; that does not make it a fight song in my mind. For as often as God's name and blessing has been invoked to sustain oppression and violence, 606 could just as easily be called a fight song. Finally, you stated that you are "encouraged by a clear and wonderful diversity of voices (meaning, less Mennonite)," but that you "cannot personally affirm this decision." To me the proper resolution to this seems very simple: Mennonites at Goshen who find the anthem objectionable should protest it in personal ways, rather than asking the college to be their corporate vehicle of protest. To me it would be a wonderful melding of radical hospitality and prophetic witness if one's personal stance against the anthem were clear even as one affirmed the college in its decision. Thank you Sheldon for the opportunity to dialogue about this and may we all strive daily to "live into Jesus' radical all to healing and hope."
Thank you for your thoughts. As a evangelical who came to Anabaptism and MC USA through its decidedly “more than patriotic” testimony through the generations, it grieves me to see Goshen College make this decision. It is difficult to see a faith community with a history of martyrdom for not backing down from highly held religious views to make such decisions to appear to a particular crowd or market.
It's hard to see how anyone could see this dreadful anthem as anything but a fight song, or certainly a war-glorifying one, with phrases like "the perilous fight," "bombs bursting in air," "the mists of the deep where the foe's haughty host in dread silence reposes" (as in death) or "Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just." (as it always is) Or how about: "Their blood has washed out their (our enemies) foul footsteps' pollution. No refuge could save the hireling and slave from the terror of flight, or the gloom of the grave" (in other words, exterminate them by whatever means). All this, of course, in the name of "And this be our motto: 'In God is our trust.'"
The TMail that mentioned this column referenced an online petition opposing playing the anthem at Goshen sporting events. That petition is here: http://www.jesusradicals.com/anarchism/resistance-to-the-national-anthem-at-goshen-college-2/ I do not think that pointed objections to playing the anthem at Goshen debase other Mennonite institutions that have played the anthem for some time. The college has made a recent decision and thus is at a more flexible moment than schools who have a tradition of playing the anthem. As numerous articles have mentioned, the fact that other Mennonite schools play then anthem affected Goshen's decision. I would counter that if they maintain their policy of not playing the anthem, they would provide space for other Mennonite institutions to shift to that way of thinking in the future (as said institutions would be able to cite Goshen as an example).
Can you be patriotic and peace loving at the same time?
Harvey- Here is the basis on which I claim the anthem is not a “fight song.” The primary intent of the lyrics is not for calling people to arms; the lyrics, primarily, are meant to illustrate a scene in which the flag waved proudly after weathering an attack from a foreign power and to use this as a sign of hope for the survival of our nation and its ideals. The battle imagery in the lyrics is in the context of the United States defending an attack from British bombs bursting in air. The most troubling line is “then conquer we must when our cause is just,” which fortunately is from a stanza that is scarcely sung ever, and in Goshen’s case will never be sung just as the first stanza won’t be. But I think it’s unfair of you to add parenthetically to that line, “As it [our cause] always is.” I find it far wiser for the pacifist to exalt the facet of this line that implies we ought not conquer when our cause is not just, rather than disdain it as an endorsement for unfettered warfare. But yes, it is not a message that I can support. I can tolerate the anthem because I feel like calling us to conquer is far from its main point. But probably what is more important than the intent of the lyrics is what people actually feel in their hearts when they hear the song (I know that when I sing hymns in church I do not limit myself to feelings that affirm the message of the lyrics). I am sure that for many people it feeds feelings of superiority, not entirely unlinked to our military strength. I contest, however, that most Americans simply feel a small sense of national solidarity (which will be helpful when controversies over abortion, gay marriage, tax policy and other issues flare up) and mostly they are just feeling excited about the sporting event at hand. More to the point, I don’t think that the lyrics used for our country’s anthem are at the heart of America’s perpetuation of the myth of redemptive violence. It’s been noted that there are more palatable patriotic songs that could have been chosen for our anthem (like “America the Beautiful”). I must add that there are also worse possibilities, like the types of explicitly violent and incendiary chants used by soldiers to prep themselves for combat; those are what I would label “fight songs.” For me, expressions of nationalism are all the more palatable when you have a president who says things like this (from the State of the Union Address): “In the end, it's our ideals, our values that built America, values that allowed us to forge a nation made up of immigrants from every corner of the globe, values that drive our citizens still. Every day, Americans meet their responsibilities to their families and their employers. Time and again, they lend a hand to their neighbors and give back to their country. They take pride in their labor and are generous in spirit. These aren't Republican values or Democratic values that they're living by, business values or labor values. They're American values.” It is our public discourse that imbues our rituals and symbols with meaning. At this time in American history I see more positive values being projected onto the flag than negative. I can imagine times in our history when the anthem must surely have served as the drum-beat for war, in which case it would be of good conscience to protest it. If the anthem lyrics were explicitly calling us to fight or if the song were seen as such by the masses, then I would urge Mennonite institutions to never play it on their campuses. We must discern with great care when a situation warrants our corporate protest and when it merely calls for personal caution.