God bless America’s pastime
(Also posted at the CENTURY Blog)
“Please stand and take off your hats for the singing of ‘God Bless America.’” That’s how the announcer introduced the seventh inning stretch at a recent Minnesota Twins game I attended. Minnesotans are nothing if not rule followers, so we stood, many took off their hats, and some even joined in singing.
My experience with “God Bless America” is limited. I don’t think I’ve ever sung the song in worship or encountered it in many public gatherings. I learned the song in elementary school, but I don’t remember singing it outside class. But in recent years “God Bless America” has enjoyed a sort of resurgence, partly because “The Star-Spangled Banner” is so difficult to sing.
I have mixed feelings about the song; if I had my druthers it wouldn’t be sung in public venues with the assumption that the listeners are praying along with the singer. That’s my interpretation of the announcer’s instruction to “take of your hats.” The song is addressed to God; it is a prayer. I suppose that if you think it’s best to stand and take off your hat to pray, then the announcer was on to something.
But what of those who do not believe in God? What of those who would like to stand but aren’t able to do so? What about those who are believers but who are uncomfortable with the song’s words, which can be taken as self-centered and miss the possibility that God might be of a mind to send justice to or even curse America for her misdeeds?
Irving Berlin wrote “God Bless America” in 1918 while he served in the U.S. Army. Berlin revised the song in 1938, and thereafter it became Kate Smith’s signature song. Berlin was Jewish, and the song’s opening notes echo a Jewish folksong. Although some argued for its adoption as America’s national anthem, southern conservatives opposed the change because Berlin was Jewish and “a foreigner.”
Until now I didn’t know the song’s history as both a victory song and a peace song, but the 1938 version includes an introduction written for the commemoration of Armistice Day:
While the storm clouds gather far across the sea,
Let us swear allegiance to a land that’s free,
Let us all be grateful for a land so fair,
As we raise our voices in a solemn prayer.
Back at the game, the Twins and Rangers players doffed their hats and enjoyed the song with the rest of us. It’s good, during the multimillion-dollar escape that is Major League Baseball, to remember that baseball is just a game, and that while we enjoy the September pennant races U.S. troops fight overseas. It’s good to reflect on God’s justice and peace on a beautiful afternoon at Target Field.
But I couldn’t help but wish that “God Bless America” would end quickly so we could move on to “Take Me Out to the Ballgame.” For a few hours, I wanted a diversion from the culture and religion wars. Can’t a guy just enjoy a baseball game in peace?
image by fishrmann
A New Century of Blogging
The Christian Century has been gracious enough to partner with me on several projects over the years, in the early days accepting A Wee Blether in the CC Blog network and more recently printing essays of mine in the magazine. Today they’ve rolled out a spanking new and very pretty website — huge changes done well. Now at the user-friendly ChristianCentury.org, you can not only read the best take on the mainline church, theology, Christian living, and society around, but you can also access archives (which I’m totally pumped about).
For several weeks, I’ll be regularly contributing to the CENTURY Blog, cross-posting here along the way. Feel free to comment on either site (at least, that’s the plan for now). I’m not quite sure how our partnership will affect the content of A Wee Blether, but I may be more churchy or pastoral at times and perhaps comment more often on recent news and cultural events. No matter what, however, I want to be sure to keep my voice, however underdeveloped it might be. And, I’ll pop up some posts here (of personal or local interest) that won’t fly at the CENTURY Blog. As always, let me know along the way how things are going. So, stay tuned as a new adventure begins…
+ + +
from the CENTURY BLOG: From Other to Friend
Amy Frykholm posted yesterday about Muhammad Musri, the Muslim leader who met with Terry Jones and helped defuse last week’s Qur’an-burning situation. If more Christians and Muslims knew one another personally, the whole furor may not have occurred in the first place.
It’s a lot harder to adopt anti-Islam rhetoric when your family doctor is Muslim, or your daughter’s college roommate is Muslim, or your congregation has worked with a mosque to build a Habitat for Humanity house. Many of the troubling statements I’ve read in recent weeks—and heard in my pastoral ministry—would never have been said if folks simply got to know their Muslim neighbors. Conversations about Islam could shift from a focus on the unknown other to one on knowing one another better.
Recently, I’ve heard of many Christian pastors participating in interfaith services, posting supportive statements regarding Islam to their Web sites and teaching Sunday School sessions on Islam. NPR recently ran a great piece on “bridging the Christian-Muslim divide.” This is all positive and helpful, good steps on the journey from fear to understanding. But nothing beats personal relationships.
Have relationships or experiences with Muslims affected you personally? How can Christians promote positive relationships with our Muslim neighbors? How can churches help connect congregants to those of other faiths?
Meme: My Faith, My Tattoo
Background information: Adam J. Copeland is a pastor conducting informal research for some Christian youth curriculum addressing tattoos. Adam’s also taking a grad school class on cyberculture. This meme combines these interests, and hopefully will help him thoughtfully consider getting a tattoo himself. So, please, pass on the meme below….
In a few sentences, respond to the questions below — respond on your blog, on this blog, on Facebook, wherever. When you’re done, share, tag a few friends, and pass on the questions. If you post this somewhere else, keep the title, “Meme: My faith, my tattoo” for easy searching. For background on what the heck a “meme” is, see this article.
My Faith, My Tattoo Meme:
1. Describe your tattoo(s):
2. What made you want that tattoo(s)?
3. How did your faith influence your tattoo, indirectly or directly?
4. What’s the relationship between your tattoo and your broader understanding of your body?
5. Was it worth it…do you have regrets?
6. What funny story has happened because of your tattoo?
7. How did your tattoo change your faith (and if not, why not)?
For background on how this meme started, see Adam Copeland’s blog at http://adamjcopeland.com
—————————————————–
Here are some inks to those who have already participated in the My Faith, My Tattoo meme via their blogs. Also, in the comments of this post several others have answered as well:
- Abby at extraordinary
- the gospel according to mark
- Bruce Reyes-Chow
- Heather at all we know is falling
- emmy at insert post-modern title here
- Adam at pomomusings
- Kendra Kinnison
- Steph at tales from the bathroom stall
- Ania Read ponders here
- mihee kim-kort
- more links goes here…
Shifting Culture: Laws against texting while driving
This week, the Grand Forks City Council passed a law that makes it illegal to send text messages while driving. I’m glad the ordinance passed — and it certainly took them a while. For some time now, in the state of Minnesota, it’s been illegal to text and drive. I hope such laws mark not just forward-thinking government but the beginning of a true cultural shift against the use of cell phones while driving.
Though in Grand Forks, a texting-while-driving citation will only cost you $15 (yes, North Dakota fines are ridiculously low!) a fine in Minnesota can range up to $131. In fact, this week, the Ramsey County Sheriff’s office launched a two-day crackdown on texting or emailing while driving. Lawbreakers (I won’t call them “illegals,” but think about it) received a warning on Thursday, but if caught Friday, will receive a ticket with a fine. In Minnesota, it’s also illegal for those under 18 to talk on a cell phone while driving.
I’m in favor of such laws, because I believe common sense — and scientific data — points to the fact that looking at a cell phone and using one’s hands to type a message with a tricky little keyboard is not in any way conducive to safe driving. Or to put it another way: when you text and drive you endanger yourself, other drivers, and any cyclists or school children nearby.
And if the data doesn’t convince you, surely these stories will. Backpacking Dad (a friend of a friend) tells in “Why I Won’t Text and Drive” how he often texts and drives, but for some serendipitous reason he abstained yesterday and consequently avoided a head-on collision with a swerving driver. So sadly, Chris wasn’t so lucky. His story is told in the post, “Honor Chris today – Pledge to never drive distracted again” Chris, a young father, died after a collision with a driver who was texting. The texter crossed several lanes of traffic, and police officers found an active text message on her iPhone at the scene.
Texting and driving kills. But we do it anyway, some folks justifying the dissonance to themselves as Backpacking Dad did, saying, “I’m a good driver.” Others of us know it’s dangerous, but that knowledge just isn’t enough to stop us.
A few years ago, I lived in Scotland for a year. Driving laws there are much stricter than the U.S. (and, ironically or not, people are way better at driving in the first place). In Scotland, it’s illegal to text and drive, because it’s illegal to touch a cell phone at all while driving (handless systems are allowed). It’s also illegal to eat while driving — which makes sense to me because it’s dangerous to try to eat a burger and fries and drive at the same time, no matter what fast food restaurant lobbyists might argue.
(As an aside, Grand Forks city council member Tyrone Grandstrand is noted in the Herald as saying, “he wouldn’t want to ban talking on the phone or combing your hair or eating a burger while driving, things that may be a bit distracting, but is not sufficiently dangerous to require a law.”)
As I understand U.S. history, drinking and driving has been illegal for a hundred years, but prior to the 1970s had a much higher blood alcohol level designation (.15) and was rarely enforced. Back in the day, even when DUI or DWI was enforced, it was seen as a minor offense. But in the 70s, thanks in large part to a campaign by Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD), laws were strengthened and a cultural shift occurred. DUI is now a significant offense with quite negative consequences in society. DUI carries large fines, and though laws vary by state, can lead to jail time, huge fines, and suspension and losing one’s license.
So I hope the laws against texting and driving in Minnesota and Grand Forks signal the beginning of a larger movement. Though I’m not aware of a large movement like MADD’s against DUI, perhaps that’s just around the corner and a cultural shift is coming. Either way, think twice, hold your thumbs; it’s a matter of life and death.
Update: Check out this great application OTTER that has some real potential and fancy-cool usability options. Thanks, Erik!
image by Michal Zacharzewski
Consuming media justly
Do wise comments spoken years ago ever keep you thinking even now? It must have been about 2004 that I heard Marva Dawn explain why she doesn’t read newspapers or stay up-to-date on current events. (Marva Dawn, by the way, is an incredibly gifted theologian and teacher who can blow you away with her orthodoxy in one sentence and her crazy-out-there ideas in the next.) Anyway, Dawn’s comment has stuck with me and still bothers me today, especially when I get sucked into the 24/7 news cycle and media-driven ridiculousness that feeds our culture of instant gratification. What’s the best way to consume news?
Dawn’s point, if I remember correctly, was that our moral imperative (for her, most definitely the Christian imperative) is for us to work for justice and peace at all times. Getting hung up on each day’s top stories and media ratings games pushes us off course. We get stuck in the trees of the hour’s headlines and miss the forest of God’s goodness, justice, holiness, and peace.
She wouldn’t have put it this way, but Dawn was speaking in favor of a TIME magazine print edition way of living as opposed to a Drudge Report approach. The TIME dead tree edition comes out weekly and has a more penetrating and expansive view of news — partly due to higher word counts, partly due to the timeliness of the news. But if you go to TIME’s blogs, or the Drudge Report, you get many updates each day on both the minutiae and the detritus of the hour. (Or you could use the analogy of The New Yorker vs. Huffington Post, or Harper’s vs. USA Today Online, take your pick.)
Each week, I read hundreds of blog posts, dozens of NY Times articles, check in at CNN.com scores of time. For local news I read the Grand Forks Herald and Kittson County Enterprise. Most weeks I’ll also read Newsweek, Time, The Presbyterian Outlook, and The Christian Century. Of course, I’ll keep up on current events through Twitter links and RSS feeds. Oh, and then there’s the hours of NPR listening and a few other podcasts thrown in to boot. And so I wonder, how do my media choices affect my view of the world?
Part of me wants to experiment and, for a week or two, try to avoid anything current events related. I might not get bogged down each week in articles or issues that are more adiaphora than anything. I wouldn’t hear reports of Apple’s iPod event in real time, nor would I read dozens of perspectives on the Ground Zero Mosque (that isn’t a mosque or at ground zero, by the way). But, on the other hand, I do think all the little articles add up to a fuller picture of the world. Sure, I may read some details about how Sen. Murkowski lost the Alaska Republican primary that really don’t matter, but I might also get a glimpse of the sentiments that are driving the Minnesotans and North Dakotans with whom I interact on a daily basis.
Either way you live, though, Dawn’s larger point is the most important. Do you seek justice and love in all your interactions and in all world affairs? For Marva Dawn, it’s easier for her to do this faithfully without reading the daily newspaper. I don’t know if she would grant that it could be, for me, easier to be faithful while keeping up on current events. My takeaway is this: whether one reads TIME dead tree edition or checks RSS news feeds hourly, the lens with which you read and live in the world is key. Do you live with a lens for social justice or do you live with a lens for social stories gone wild?
image by Gerhard Höllisch
Barack Obama is not a Muslim (well, it depends who you ask)
A Pew research poll yesterday found that only 34% of Americans can correctly identify President Obama as a Christian. This number is down 17 percentage points from those who identified his Christian faith correctly during the 2008 campaign (apparently folks are forgetful about their leader’s faith?). 24% of Americans incorrectly believe Obama is Muslim. (And the Pew poll was conducted before Obama weighed in on the Park51/Cordoba House project question. Here is a similar TIME poll.)
Before I go further, let me follow Amy Sullivan’s lead (here) and note what must be said at this point. Sullivan writes:
Let me pause for a moment here to say that it is of course not a smear to call someone a Muslim. It is, however, obnoxious to say someone is a member of a religious faith when he’s not–and to insist that he is not a member of the tradition he does claim. It would also be foolish and naive to pretend that conservatives who call Obama a Muslim are doing it in a neutral way and that their intention is not to raise questions about his “otherness.”
By the way, for those who actually want to think deeply on Obama’s faith, pick up a copy of The Faith of Barack Obama by Stephen Mansfield. But here’s what this outrageous poll data causes me to ponder:
First, I’m struck by the fact that though I interact with hundreds of people personally and professionally, I’d be hard-pressed to name more than a handful who might believe President Obama is Muslim. But, according to the poll, 1 in 4 Americans believe so. This reminds me of my sheltered nature, of the cliquishness of American life, and my self-selected friends and relations. Additionally, since Obama’s faith practically never comes up in regular conversation, I wonder if perhaps I’m just way off presuming my friends and relations have accurate understandings of Obama’s faith.
Second, who knows how really to delve into such things via a poll, but I wonder how much the faith poll numbers would correspond to more overt racism if pollsters asked the right question. My guess is that many of those who believe Obama is Muslim might also be very uncomfortable with those of other faiths and those of other skin colors in general. (For example, the TIME poll finds, “Nearly one-third of the country thinks adherents of Islam should be barred from running for President.”) Perhaps it’s the case that maligning Islam is somehow culturally okay, while overtly using racial epithets crosses a time-honored line.
Finally, I profoundly disagree with Sullivan’s statement in her analysis that, “In a perfect world, nobody would give a hoot whether the president went to church or said grace before meals or ever uttered one word publicly about his religious beliefs.” Religious belief is hugely important to me, as is any moral underpinnings or claims about the end times, or belief in divine interventionism, or God’s loving nature, or God’s non-existence, etc.. I will happily vote for candidates of many religious faiths (or none), but I will always seek to do so considering a candidate’s faith, thoughtfulness, and positions on the issues. I appreciate Sullivan’s reporting, but I’ll go to my grave professing that faith matters matter. And that’s what’s awesome about the US and the First Amendment — and very scary about this poll data.
Update: Amy Sullivan reflects a bit more on 8/20/10 in “Are One-Quarter of Americans Freakin’ Morons”
Creative Commons image by Alex Johnson
In Defense of Twitter
Let’s call it “Twitterphobia.” Several times a week, in my usual perusal of weekly magazines, op-ed pieces, and current event commentary I run into a well-respected and well-researched writer bemoaning Twitter. “Twitter is dumbing down our teenagers,” they say. “Twitter is besieging our English majors.” “Twitter is poisoning our minds and starving us of the few intellectual merits we still have.”
Nice try, but Twitter ain’t the issue folks. In fact, I think Twitter and its 140-character messages is causing a flippin’ amazing surge in creative thinking. Let me explain.
- Though some say 140 characters is a too short to say much of anything, I say the 140 character limit Twitter employs actually pushes us to write with precision, creativity, and pizzazz. Who knows, maybe its just the the fact that there’s a limit at all causes anyone with tenure to freak out over a perceived threat to intellectual freedom. Mark Twain once apologized to an editor when sending in a new essay, “I’m sorry I didn’t have time to make this shorter.” Brevity is not the enemy. Sometimes the attacks feel like a group of poets worrying long form poetry is at risk, but instead of writing good long form poetry they lash out against haikus. I say simply: brevity is beautiful.
- Sure, Twitter isn’t a platform for drawn-out arguments laced with careful caveats, but it’s not trying to be. What Twitter can do – really well, in fact – is point people in the direction of just that sort of work. Every day, I click on Internet links recommended by those I follow on Twitter and arrive at fantastic articles, sometimes very long, which I often then recommend to my followers on Twitter as well. In fact, the New York Times and Slate recently reported that some of their most-read articles over the past few years have been their longest. Twitter isn’t killing long-form journalism, rather, it might be resuscitating it after all. … Continue Reading
Connect Online
