Memorial Day and the religious syncretism of the state
I wasn’t in town yesterday and I didn’t have a chance to post on here, but here is a summary of my thoughts on yesterday’s civil holiday, Memorial Day.
When I was in high school and college, and even after I was in college, I thought about becoming a Catholic priest. Seriously discerned it on and off for a long time. Eventually I discovered that I was to marry Emily, so that took care of the whole priest question. As I have reflected on how my religio-political views have evolved, though, I wonder what sort of trouble I would be getting in had I chosen to become a priest.
Let me start over and explain more fully what I mean. If you are a reader of this blog, you are probably aware of the problem of American Christianity’s tendency to unite itself with American civil religion. Even in the Catholic Church, a church that should (in theory) have a greater consciousness of its transnational character, succumbs to this sort of syncretism time and again when we do things like place American flags in our sanctuaries, when we sing the national anthem at Mass, and when we refer to American soldiers in our prayers as “our” troops.
An even greater danger, however, and one that I think slips by us without us even thinking about it sometimes, is our inability to distinguish between the state’s mythology and holidays and the mythology and holidays of Christianity. Many Catholics see no problem with celebrating the state’s holidays, and sometimes we even celebrate special Masses on these days, such as Independence Day and Thanksgiving, in effect “baptising” them and making them an unofficial part of the liturgical calendar.
Memorial Day is a great example. Yesterday, on Memorial Day, I was making the 2 hour drive home from a family gathering. The occasion for the gathering was, in fact, not Memorial Day per se, but for the birthday of two relatives. On the drive home, Emily and I passed a small country Baptist church and on the marquee was the question: “What will you do for Christ this Memorial Day?” Aside from the fact that the question makes absolutely no sense, I was irritated and almost stopped the car to take a digital picture of the sign because it was such a clear example of the (largely unnoticed) sort of religious syncretism that exists in the United States. Here in the USA, we’ll combine the mythology and holidays of Christianity and American civil religion even if the result is completely unintelligible nonsense. Last year, on the Sunday before Memorial Day at my own parish in Morgantown, we had a visiting priest and near the end of Mass, before he processed out of the church as the congregation sang “America the Beautiful,” he started going on and on about honoring the soldiers who “gave the ultimate sacrifice.” All of this he said in front of a giant crucifix which, last time I checked, represents the “ultimate sacrifice” in which Christians believe.
We get into a really dangerous place when we start confusing our myths and our holidays. Memorial Day celebrates the memory of those who gave their lives serving the United States in its military, many of them making the “ultimate sacrifice” (in the state’s view) because of it. That’s fine. The state needs holidays like this to support its grand mythology, just like any religious body. The Church, however, has its own “sort” of “Memorial Day.” In fact, our celebration of the Christian “Memorial Day” spans two days: All Saints Day and All Souls Day, November 1 and 2, respectively. These are the days that Christians celebrate the lives of those who have gone before us giving their lives as followers of Christ, many of them making the ultimate sacrifice as martyrs.
Our “Independence Day” as Christians is the Triduum, where we celebrate the freedom that comes from sharing in Christ’s death and resurrection. Just as Americans celebrate their pride of citizenship on the fourth of July, Christians celebrate similar sentiments and convictions on the feast of Christ the King, the last Sunday of the Church year. Finally, should Christians participate in the American feast of Thanksgiving, the day we thank God for allowing us to invade North America? Certainly thankfulness is important to Christians, and it is the heart of Christian prayer, but I’m not sure why it is neccessary for Christians to join in the American version of such a feast when thankgiving is the ongoing focus of eucharist, the gathering of the Lord’s Supper, which some Christians celebrate weekly, or even daily.
Should not Christians at least consider resisting American holidays as a way of resisting the American mythology, the metanarrative that, as Catholic theologian William Cavanaugh says, serves as an “alternative soteriology” to the Church’s story of salvation history? Should we not look for opportunites to subvert the holidays of the empire in which we find ourselves, reminding ourselves of and drawing attention to the ways in which these holidays, as part of American mythology, try to shape our loyalties and practices according to the ideals of the nation-state?
I know that, had I become a priest, I would not have been able to celebrate Memorial Day or Independence Day Masses in good conscience. And I know that, as a result, I would run into congregational resistance and be reviled by my “good, patriotic” churchgoers. But, I would remind them, the days are not on the liturgical calendar for, as much as we tend to forget, they are not part of our Christian story of salvation.
Let us use this Memorial Day, though it has passed, as an opportunity for subversive prayer that asks God for a greater awareness of the religious syncretism that plagues our American churches.
The question becomes, thus, are you advocating Christian separatism? Just wondering.
No I’m not advocating a Christian separatism, or sectarianism. But I don’t think mindless syncretism is the only alternative to sectarianism. I think we need a healthy, Catholic suspicion, though, of alternative metanaratives to our own (American myth), and clearly understand the differences between the two.
I think American Catholics largely already practice sectarianism, but based on their identify as Americans. We need to reject sectarianism by seeing ourselves as part of the transnational Body of Christ.
Well put Mikey, I certainly agree with what you’ve said. But I’ve recently become troubled by something. The radical reformation was able to reject much of the state building going on at the time of their founding because in part they abandoned an analogical view of language. For example, at his trial, Micheal Satler denies that Christ is present in the Eucharist because Christ is in heaven, and how can somebody be two places at once?!
Catholics on the other hand use analogy to separate out different aspects of a word. There is also a tendency in traditional Catholic thinking going as far back as Augustine (maybe further) to universalize this way of thinking. Some of the earliest Church father’s like Origen and Turtullian also assert that while Christians may not participate in the Empire’s war making they can (and do) pray for the well being of the Empire and the Emperor. This seems like an application of analogous thinking in the early Church.
Yoder for example, being a member of an ecclesial body that has abandoned analogical thinking, can make the move to absolutize acceptance or rejection of the state. But if analogical thinking is crucial to Catholic thought, especially things like Christ’s presence in the Eucharist, then how can that not be used the way Turtullian or Origen use it?
I don’t neccessarily see anyting wrong with praying for the “well-being” of the empire and/or the emperor. But celebrating the “story” of the empire as if it were one’s own story is something else.
Another aspect of this whole thing came to mind a bit ago… a lot of American Christians flip out when non-Christians want to celebrate Christmas, Easter, etc. When it comes to that whole debate, Christians have no problem whatsover with making the “sectarian” separation between holidays that are “ours” and holidays that are “theirs.” Isn’t it interesting that charges of “sectarianism” don’t get hurled around in that whole debate?
But both the praying for and holidays both work towards a general support of empire, don’t they? See, this is where I have problems some of the either/or allegiance stuff.
And my concern isn’t over the praying for per se. Its a deeper question over the limits of analogical thinking. Some thinkers like Tracey or Greely want to absolutize it. Unlike my previous posts suggests, I don’t want to universalize analogy. But I’m not sure where to draw the line. Usually when I have problems with that I try to side with the tradition. Origen and Turtullian seem to be on the analogical both/and and not on the exclusive either/or.
Adam, could you elaborate on your concern here? I’m not sure I’m following how a questioning of the empire’s myths and holidays means a rejection of analogical thinking.
And although it is a peripheral concern of yours, no I don’t think praying for the empire means the same thing as supporting an empire. Unless you mean praying for the success of an empire. I can pray for a friend of mine who is oppressed with addictive behaviours, but that does not mean I support him.
Notice that spelling of “behaviours”? Canada, here we come. ;)
Kid to Bart Simpson: I’m from Canada, and they think I’m slow, eh.
I’m probably making a mountain out of a molehill here. Ultimately, my concern is over a tension between analogical (i.e. both/and) and exclusive (i.e. either/or) thinking in the Christian, and specifically Catholic, intellectual tradition. Where does one start and the other begin?
As it pertains this particular issue however: its clear that you, like most other radical orthodox theologians, see allegiance to the state, for Christians, as an exclusive one or the other sort of fashion. This is fine, and I’m in your camp. But it also seems to me that prevalent throughout the Christian intellectual tradition analogy, a tendency to affirm some parts of something while denying other aspects, has been a necessary part of theology. This is especially important in sacramental theology and using language to describe God.
While much work has been done to demonstrate that in Bible Christains did have an attitude of opposition toward the Empire. I’m not sure that this reflects the earliest patristic (pre-Constantinian) reality on-up to about the radical reformation. For starters, Origen and Turtullian point out that they pray for the Empire and Emperor in apologetic material. That is, they are trying to demonstrate that they are not a threat to the Empire, and not work executing. Thus praying for it, is more akin to praying for its “well being.”
When opposition to state power among Christian does ferment again, during the radical reformation, the anabaptists jettison this entire way of thinking (like the example of Michael Satler above). I guess what I’m trying to ask here with the myths and holidays is that I feel I either have to circumscribe analogical thinking to certain sphere of theology or make the anabaptist move and drop it all together.
Does that make sense?
Yep it makes sense. Aside from that whole debate though, don’t you think that any tendency of an imperial entity to absolutize itself would neccessarily have to be rejected even within a both/and approach on the grounds of idolatry?
We’d also have to get into the differences between current imperial realities and those of Origen & Tertullian’s time, particularly the rise of the modern nation-state. Cavanaugh gets into this.
Yes, it should be rejected. But I don’t know how I can within a both/and approach. That’s my issue, I guess.
Can a both/and approach include the either/or approach? You know, since it’s “both/and”? (Stole this line of thinking from Michael Baxter.)
Sorry to come back to this (GOOD GRAVY!) four years later. But I think that’s exactly the opposite of what Baxter is suggesting. “both both/and and either/or” is like saying “round square” or “dry water.” Its not that something outside the statement falsifies it (like saying “its raining out” when it isn’t) the language of the statement itself is automatically false.