Jesus and jihad

By Jason Byassee

Marilynne Robinson is perhaps the most widely read theologian presently working in America. Of course she is not an academic theologian. But she is a serious reader of Calvin and reckoner with the divine. Undoubtedly more people have read her Pulitzer-winning novel Gilead and her astonishing review of Richard Dawkins in Harpers (November 2006) than have read any writer currently working in the theological academy. She is scathingly impatient both with hasty dismissals of religion (Darwinism is a favorite bête noir for her) and with hasty impositions of it (by, say, evangelicals).

During a recent visit to the Center of Theological Inquiry in Princeton for a conference on the future of theology and the media, Robinson lit into the theologians gathered with her on the damage done in Christianity’s name by arrogant and insensitive evangelism on college campuses like hers. Robinson’s obliviousness to the fact that mainline theologians don’t need lecturing on this score is part of her charm: she doesn’t read present-day theologians, so she doesn’t know those associated with the mainline are not normally the ones sending tract-bearing zealots into the streets. In fact, the conferee who brought up evangelism and the need to do it more was a Jew, Peter Ochs, who said he looked forward to the day when Jews announce God’s reign in the streets, as they have been loathe to do for obvious reasons for millennia, but are charged to do in the scriptures.

In another instance, Robinson had harsh words for her own United Church of Christ’s tendency to scrub hymns and theological language of any note of violence or oppression. The UCC is out in front of the rest of us in this: not only is the male pronoun not used for God, but the word “Lord” is eschewed (perhaps to keep any of us vassals from confusing the almighty with our present baron). Hopefully the rest of us won’t follow.

Robinson brought up politically correct theological language in a conversation about Islam. She spoke of the deeply rooted and venerable Muslim community in Iowa City and of how her church has reached out in friendship to it, especially after 9/11. “I wish we still had hymns like ‘Onward Christian Soldiers,’” she said—it’d make it easier to discuss a theologically fraught concept like jihad.

Scrubbing our hymnody of violent imagery can make us Christians think that we are without martial intent—that we’re mere innocents—while “evildoers” (read: Muslims) are out to get us. In reality, whitewashing the language makes it more difficult to grow in civility and friendship with Muslims, since it takes away a point of commonality: we both have “texts of terror” with which to wrestle against our respective fundamentalists, and we must come to grips with these texts if we’re to live as neighbors.

Comments

[Steve Thorngate]

I'm not sure what we're to do with "Onward Christian Soldiers" other than simply get rid of it. Sing it ironically? Sing it right before the corporate confession, perhaps making reference to it in the latter ("in thought, word, deed, and song")? Raises some interesting questions about the sometimes competing demands of worship and cultural engagement. Yes, it's much better to take ownership for the less savory parts of our own heritage, to come to grips with rather than whitewash them. But was does this mean practically in the case of a hymn (or liturgical text, ritual, etc.)?

[Jason Byassee]

It's a good question. I found myself sympathetic with her defense of the hymn, but its in the UM hymnal and I've never once chosen it for the congregation to sing! It may be a little like "Lift High the Cross," which in one way is unbearably triumphalistic, but sung in another (allegorically perhaps?) is God's charge to the church. Still not sure I'll choose "Onward"...

[Steve Thorngate]

Exactly. "Lift High" is a musical gem w/ Anglican roots, and you bet we do it at my Episcopal church--even as we condemn triumphalism from the pulpit. And I don't think any of us at the ELCA church where I used to work put a lot of stock in redemptive violence--but you wouldn't have known it from the Bach chorales we programmed during Holy Week.

I think it always takes a long time for our tradition-rooted practice to catch up with our (hopefully) forward-looking beliefs. "Onward Christian Soldiers" is just a particularly glaring example.

[Debra Dean Murphy]

I agree that singing “Onward Christian Soldiers” in our contemporary political context is problematic--and, given the nature of western culture since the time of the hymn’s origins, has probably always been problematic. But we shouldn’t overlook the source of the hymn’s inspiration: the rather pervasive militaristic imagery in parts of the New Testament--the letters of Paul, especially. Of course, when Paul and his later followers wrote about, say, “putting on the whole armor of God,“ they were not endorsing military might or political aggression or state-sanctioned violence; they were doing just the opposite: announcing the undoing of the principalities and powers. The use of military metaphors was a way to subvert the logic of violence and terror ironically, even playfully, since for Paul, the very undoing of death (Fleming Rutledge’s fine phrase) is accomplished through an eschewing of all violence and a robust pursuit of the things that make for peace. So . . . in “Onward Christian Soldiers” it’s interesting to note that while the triumphalistic tone and tune--composed by Arthur Sullivan of Gilbert and Sullivan fame!--makes us wince, there are some interesting layers of meaning worth exploring, not the least of which is the church’s call to unity and oneness. My guess (and it’s just a guess) is that for someone like Marilynne Robinson who sees the Bible and theology through the eyes of a poet, there’s something useful about retaining such multivalent texts, however troubling they may appear at first glance.

[John C. Bonser]

One of the ironies of "Onward Christian Soldiers" lies in the verse that contains "Like a mighty army, moves the Church of God."

[Duane from Kansas]

I can't believe that this "debate" over this hymn (which I loved as a child) is still going on in the church. Have we lost not only our ability to analyze our own language (even poetic language) in order to "sound" politically correct? Onward Christian soldiers marching AS to war! We're IN a war -- a battle against sin, evil, hatred, divisiveness, injustice, lovelessness, apathy etc. Everyday Luther says we internally "battle" the sinner/sainthood of what we are as Christians. Do we still use the words "the church militant" and the church "triumphant" in our theology?? "Crowns and thrones may perish, Kingdoms rise and wane, but the church of Jesus, constant will remain!" This hymn speaks of the global church united regardless of denomination, or national origin following the voice of Christ to be faithful bringers of forgiveness, love, peace, joy and light to a world that "battles" against us in favor of greed, division, disunity and selfishness. We're not in a spiritual war?? Huh!

[John C. Bonser]

Duane - You are right. However, we rarely see the evidence that those of us who so glibly name the name of Christ are ready to step out and speak up.

[Jason Byassee]

Duane--love the zeal! And I lean toward your position and Marilynne's that it's best to keep and sing the hymn. Though it's a worthy debate, precisely because the church has so blithely blessed war so often (and not the spiritual kind). How then should our preaching and worship forge our imaginations and desires after the one we claim to follow, who is also Prince of Peace? That's not a question of 'political correctness' (does the world care what we sing?) but of the church's faithfulness.