Response to the responses
I figured that my Memorial Day piece would cause a mild stir, but I didn’t expect quite the response that it did get. Part of the interest was certainly due to the fact that I cross-posted the piece on the Vox Nova blog, a brand new political Catholic blog that has gained a fairly wide readership although it has only been around for a couple weeks now. Most of the responses in the comboxes (here and at Vox Nova) have been positive.
There have been a handful of negative responses on various Catholic blogs. I won’t make too much of the responses, as most of them are quite predictable, and simply reflect the kind of thinking that I argued against in the first place. Some even used creative terms like “fruitcake” and “jerkwad.” Nice.
Perhaps the most interesting response was from the blog of Jay Anderson who compares my stance with that of a group of vandals who drew swastikas on the gravestones of veterans in Washington state. So instead of actually critiquing my ideas, even in a predictable way, Anderson makes the ultimate low blow by comparing my critique of American idolatrous nationalism to antisemitic hate crime. Um, ok. These sorts of mindless reactions are really sad to me because they reveal where the hearts of many American Catholics truly are, where their true allegiances lie.
Morning’s Minion responded with a positive, two-part piece here and here.
“Predictable” it might have been. “Wrong” is something you’ve yet to prove. The predictable pro-life response is “the baby is a human life and human life ought not to be killed” but it’s still true.
As far as the responses go, you misuse the “fruitcake” one intentionally. The guy says you’re “nuttier than a fruitcake.” That’s much different than calling someone a “fruitcake.” Someone does actually call you a jerkwad, which was wrong, but it does concern me that you were more upset about being called a “jerkwad” than a “hatriot.” I would have been bothered by that more as it suggests that you actively root against your country.
Hi Michael,
So I am not a “fruitcake,” but “nuttier than a fruitcake.” Point taken, and I stand corrected. [sigh]
Yeah I forgot to mention the “hatriot” thing. That term was actually a new one to me. Did that guy invent it just for me? I’m not sure what you mean about “rooting against” my country. Who would I be rooting “for”? “The terrorists?” I am serious; not sure what you mean. No his implication doesn’t bother me because I think he is not accurate and wants to portray me as “anti-American” or something, which is a common tactic that I am used to by now. I don’t “root against” the United States, whatever that means. But I am critical of its inherent theology and practices.
I did reply to your comments and concerns on your blog and hope that they help you see where I am coming from.
One of the great risks in engaging in polemics is the temptation to paint one’s opponent as a particular “typeâ€. We see this from Victor at Coalition for Fog in his argument that you, Michael, are a “hatriotâ€. It is also visible, though, in your use of the words “predictableâ€, “kind of thinkingâ€, “creative termsâ€, and “mindless reactionsâ€.
I am not suggesting that the reactions were not “mindlessâ€, nor am I suggesting that you are not a “hatriotâ€. But there is a problem in the dialogue (and there is definitely a dialogue that you are engaging in here, one which I think to be very important) when either side is limited to engaging with a mere caricature of the other.
One aspect of this problem is that we overlook and brush off valid arguments as we dismiss our opponent. Victor offered an effective challenge to your essay (though the supporting argument was laced with faults) when he wrote:
“…their one-track thinking presupposes and forces an absolute radical choice between Caesar and Christ according to a monistic conception of good…â€
Though on the level of myth, Caesar and Christ are at odds, this does not mean that government and faith always are. For many people, particularly those who have served in the military and their families, Memorial Day (a government holiday) is a day of grieving. This is an authentic and valuable purpose for a holiday, and one that is not at all at odds with the Gospel. For many others it is a rallying call for the culture of violence, which is exactly what your essay was aimed at, I think. It is important to distinguish the two functions of this holiday, and to acknowledge and validate the people who honor it authentically.
Secondly, opinions themselves are fraught with pitfalls for people of faith.
When I first began living in community (about six years ago), I started the practice of leaving my bedroom door open 24/7 (I changed my clothes in the bathroom when I went to shower). I slept on a little military cot made of wood and canvas in an otherwise empty room. If you were to open my closet door, you would’ve found two bookcases filled with philosophy and classic novels, and one small backpack full of clothes. I did not live this way for penance or any kind of austerity. It didn’t feel austere, it felt happy, open, and incredibly free. And I found that when my housemates needed someone to talk to, they felt welcome to walk right into my room and sit down to talk with me.
This practice was invaluable to my formation as a Christian. It taught me to re-order my priorities; that the life of the community and the needs of my neighbors are more important than my privacy, or any of my other indulgences.
Today, I am finding my vocation as a catholic worker to be in conflict with another vocation – my marriage. My wife and I left Bread & Roses, along with another member of the community, as a result of incredible acrimony and bitterness at B&R. The experience of life at B&R has seriously turned my wife off to life in community… even to the practice of hospitality.
I find that, as I have struggled with this conflict, I have often devolved something very beautiful into a set of opinions. Life in community, voluntary poverty, the daily Works of Mercy… we must do these things because they will “fix†society, and because the Bible tells us to do them, I say. And you know what? The freedom and joy are gone as a result. If I persist in this error, it will cost me both my faith and my marriage.
I think we all, both on the right as well as on the left, are tempted to make the same mistake with Sacred Scripture. We turn it into a set of politics… and we turn those who disagree with our politics into our opponents. It becomes acceptable to label our fellow Christians such that we no longer hallow our relationship with them.
The consequences of this can be extraordinarily harmful. I think Radical Catholic Mom provides an example of this in her post at Vox Nova (Honoring the Dead):
“When my two Marine brothers were serving at the same time, one in Iraq the other in Afghanistan, I asked a local deacon at my parish to pray for them. Do you know what he said to me? He said, ‘What is wrong with your family to produce two killers?’â€
Be careful that you do not fall into this trap in your own ministry, Michael. It is clear from having read your blog for a while that you’ve got something valuable and vital to say to the world. But take care that the actualization of the message doesn’t get sacrificed to the argument for the message. Because the point of it all is to bring us closer together… to build a world founded on Love.
Michael, I just read your last post and missed most of the discussion. Brief thoughts:
First of all, good post overall. There is such a thing as a national mythology and a national narrative and you have certainly done a good job pointing out its negative aspect. A distinction in civil conversation that is not often brought up is the distinction between a country and a government. This is the difference between singing “God Bless America” (God bless our household) and singing praises upon our flag and government. Certainly for many it is easy to cross the line. Patriotism is, of course, the refuge of the scoundrel. I always loved Chesterton’s distinction between a love of one’s country for being great, and the love for a country because it is yours. We can love America because it is ours, the problem is when we love America because she is great, because she is mighty. This pride is conditional, while love is not.
I think I understand your point about speaking about “our troops”, and the intonation and meaning intended as it is commonly invoked. When someone says “pray for our troops”, I share your revulsion at this, but on the knowledge that some people actually believe that these troops are protecting America (the land, not the government), it is not with the wrong intention that someone speaks thusly. I think the point you wanted to make might have been more political, or at least on the obligation of the Catholic to fulfill his role in civil society as a good Christian. The question comes to mind, how can a good, conscientous Catholic support the US government at times like this, when it tyranizes us with taxes, wars, invasion of liberties, and imposes itself on the world? One wishes the Catholics who are waving flags on Memorial Day paid closer attention to Rome’s teachings on these matters.
By the way, I want to make it clear that the revulsion I spoke of was not in praying for the troops, but in the persistant use of the possessive in reference to the United States military.
I doubt very seriously that what happened in Washington state was an “antisemitic hate crime”. It was an effort by the vandals to compare those who have served in the U.S. Armed Forces to fascists.
When I get together with my baptist preacher buddy, and we really want to piss each other off, we start accusing one another of patriotism. It takes a few beers before we get that dirty, though. I like this ‘hatriot’ thing, though, that’s cute. Any idea of the source for that little neologism?
As a Christian anarchist, wouldn’t it stand to reason that one would be both internationalist and anti-nationalist? That doesn’t mean that one doesn’t love the people of the U.S. and those who serve in its armed forces. God loves everybody, and one of the ways we Christians show our love is to call others to repent. Dorothy Day used to justify anti-war actions in terms of the spiritual works of mercy, “rebuking the sinner.” Our loyalty is ultimately to Jesus and the Reign/Commonwealth of God and proximately to the Church as sign, sacrament, herald, and forerunner, as well as contrast society. Why would it surprise anyone that Christians would question civil religion as idolatrous and demonic?
In the Roman Catholic context, some in the Church asserted their hyperpatriotism to prove that they were “real Americans.” Some are still bound by this demon. Others keep alive an international, (and in some cases anti-national), which is a necessary (but not sufficient) condition for being Catholic. We Episcopalians have always been bound by demons of patriotism but through different kinds of peace and justice movements have in some cases become unbound. I believe that Catholic Worker and Pax Christi have served a similar function in recalling Catholicism to its roots. All Christian churches struggle with various kinds of neo-Constantinianism, esp. in the heartland of the Empire.
I’d like to take this opportunity to recommend a great book by Gregory Boyd, The Myth of a Christian Nation. Boyd is an evangelical pastor in Minnesota, and the book began as a series of sermons that he delivered to his congregation. About a thousand people left his church outraged by his opposition to the merger of evangelicalism and nationalism. But four thousand stayed, and that’s reason for hope.
“Treedom” quoted Paul Johnson about intellectuals thinking they represent “the people.” Now Johnson isn’t exactly the most felicitous figure to cite—his personal life was pretty shameful—but he is right that intellectuals often engage in phony populism. But that’s not what Michael appears to me to be doing. Indeed, he’s taking a very un-popular stance; he’s not claiming to represent “the people.” A prophetic stance speaks to the people, calls the people to repentance, but it doesn’t require or solicit popular consent. It speaks the truth; it doesn’t rest on focus groups or opinion polls or market research. (That’s the way of corporate and imperial elites.) And no one is saying that the people are “morons”—even if, frankly, many of them are. That’s just a red herring. Treedom is the one engaging in bogus populism on that one.
Jay – Well, since that possible interpretation of the vandalism was completely lost on me, I suppose this goes to show that your theory of linking their motivations and mine is completely false.
Thanks to everyone else for the comments… I’ll reply more later this evening.
i am with you iafrate.
please tell me that you have seen the preview for next rambo installment. all i could say was “holy shit!” over and over again.
the use of saint francis’ prayer made me especially disgusted. and ‘torture and eucharist’ kept coming to mind.
here it is: http://www.worstpreviews.com/trailer.php?id=160&item=0
peace of christ.
How about the line “When you’re pushed, killing’s as easy as breathing.”
I wasn’t sure whether proper etiqutte was to post my comment here or on For Our Greater Glory’s site. So I’m posting it both places. But I wanted to affirm your criticism of praying for “our” troops in Christian worship.
It was very poignant that in his response, Michael Denton displayed his misunderstanding of your criticism by quoting John 15.13 (‘to lay down one’s life for one’s friends’) in reference to soldiers dying for one’s country.
The problem, which I’m glad you’ve helped point out, is when we take other ‘communities’ to be more determinative of our identities and loyalties than the Body of Christ, so that the use of “our” comes to signify loyalties that we might rightly hold in themselves, but which are being used as an excuse for unfaithfulness to the Gospel.
I think part of the circularity of this debate is that the in/appropriateness of the use of “our” will be viewed differently depending on whether or not one thinks killing for one’s country is compatible with the gospel, or not. I agree with you, michael (of CA), that “our troops” is improper Christian speech precisely because it signifies our (personal) identification with a particular nation’s militaristic cause, and implies that those we are fighting against are our enemies.
If the good news of the Gospel is that Christ has (insert eschatological proviso here) reconciled both Jews and Gentiles (the nations), all peoples, into one body (Eph.2-3), then it is not impossible to lay down one’s life for one’s friends, but it is a severe mistake to so limit biblical “friendship” that it comes to mean “my fellow-citizens”, whose cause can then be opposed to that of other nations or peoples.
Peace,
Scott