Anglican Bishop Bans Patriotic Hymn

[Guest TheProudDuck]

A bishop of the Church of England has banned from his church the singing of the late Princess Diana's favorite hymn -- "I Vow To Thee, My Country."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml.../12/ixhome.html

Apparently, to this PC priest, the hymn's patriotic theme contains dangerous parallels to Nazism. (To good lefties, any expression of patriotism is tantamount to fascism -- even the patriotism of English and American patriots that defeated the actual fascists.)

I especially love the guy's suggestion that the hymn encourages people to put their country before God. Dude -- have you actually read the song? Especially the line "I vow to thee, my country, all earthly things above?"

I could go on with an enlightened rebuttal of this misguided gentleman, pointing out the fallacies in his thinking and the shallowness of his worldview. Or I could advise him to kiss my star-spangled derriere. Frankly, I doubt either response would have much effect on him; these self-described open-minded folks tend to have their minds locked up tighter than size-32 pants on Michael Moore.

[Matt]

But speaking from a theological point, he is right.

The bishop said the words, written by Sir Cecil Spring-Rice in 1918, were "totally heretical" because they suggested that people should pledge their allegiance to their country before God.

"My country, right or wrong is not an appropriate sentiment for Christians to uphold," he said.

And by the way, the composer of the tune is reported to have hated the words.

And the Bishop has not banned it, merely questioned the use of it. The Bishop of the Church of England is probably equal to the Mormon Stake President.

Mind you, I remember when the stake president of the stake I was in decided to try to ban all dances on the grounds that: "There's far too many 'fun' activities for the youth of the church. They should be sat at home reading their scrpitures and preparing for missions. And when they come back form their missions, they should be too busy getting married to think about going to dances." (I think he lost a lot of people with that last one, as holding dances might have been a useful way for RMs to meet their future Sister Right!

[Guest TheProudDuck]

If the good bishop were accurately stating the message of the song, maybe he'd be theologically correct. But he's not.

The bishop said the words, written by Sir Cecil Spring-Rice in 1918, were "totally heretical" because they suggested that people should pledge their allegiance to their country before God.

Again, Bishop, read the bloody song. There is no way you can construe a song about pledging allegiance to one's country "all earthly things above" as saying country should come before God. The second verse elides from dedication to country to dedication to the kingdom of God. There's no doubt that the song portrays the loyalty referenced in the second verse as superior to the first:

I vow to thee, my country—all earthly things above—

Entire and whole and perfect, the service of my love;

The love that asks no question, the love that stands the test,

That lays upon the altar the dearest and the best;

The love that never falters, the love that pays the price,

The love that makes undaunted the final sacrifice.

And there’s another country, I’ve heard of long ago—

Most dear to them that love her, most great to them that know;

We may not count her armies, we may not see her King;

Her fortress is a faithful heart, her pride is suffering;

And soul by soul and silently her shining bounds increase,

And her ways are ways of gentleness, and all her paths are peace.

I mean, I'm not terribly impressed by the theological sophistication of tax-supported Church of England clergy (the Church's once-proud intellectual tradition having become almost as empty as its pews on Sundays), but you'd think these guys, having attended divinity school, would understand that God is not an "earthly" entity.

The bishop did ban the singing of the hymn at any of the services he conducted. Here's another sample of his thinking:

"I quoted it as one example of my concerns about growing nationalism," he told the Telegraph. "While I am proud to be English, it is dangerous for a nation to suggest that our culture is somehow superior to others."

The bishop said the emergence of nationalism had been evident during the Euro 2004 football tournament and recent military anniversaries such as D-Day.

"It is like American culture where there is this view that America is the land of the free when we know it is not. But there are those in America who want to maintain that it is and want to impose their understanding, their culture, their way of doing things on everybody else. That is dangerous."

If the bishop is "concerned" by the present treacly state of English nationalism, he's set the bar unbelievably low.

And I do just love his smug dismissal of American freedom. I swear, I can just hear the smooth NPR-style soft jazz playing when I read this guy. His type is so predictable.

[Matt]

I mean, I'm not terribly impressed by the theological sophistication of tax-supported Church of England clergy

Where did you get the quaint notion that the Church of England is funded by taxation?

It is funded out of the contribution of members and by returns from investments. It gets no tax money.

[Guest TheProudDuck]

Originally posted by Matt@Aug 16 2004, 04:14 PM

I mean, I'm not terribly impressed by the theological sophistication of tax-supported Church of England clergy

Where did you get the quaint notion that the Church of England is funded by taxation?

It is funded out of the contribution of members and by returns from investments. It gets no tax money.

From the fact that most of the state churches of Europe are funded by church taxes. England does seem to be the exception to the rule.

Apparently England does things a little differently; most of the Church's revenues come from its holdings. (Of course, these holdings were originally granted to it by the government, so in that sense, the Church is government-supported.)

On the other hand, the government does provide the bulk of the cost of maintaining and operating "redundant" churches of historical or architectural value. Since Anglican attendance is so dismal, I suspect there may be a little bit of subterfuge going on here; I mean, pretty much every second (empty) church in that green and pleasant land could be classified as "redundant." The government's support of "redundant" churches effectively subsidizes dead congregations.

There may well be a legitimate government interest in preserving England's monuments of the Age of Faith. But if the American government funded the upkeep of historic churches, allowing congregations to continue to use them, there would be a huge outcry about the separation of church and state. In short, even though the Church of England's receipt of tax funds is limited (I learn something new every day), it still receives government support at a level far beyond anything Americans would tolerate.

[Tr2]

I can understand the logic. Don't agree with it, but can understand why somebody would think that.

[Guest jackvance88]

you need to look at when the song was written, 1918. the british government sent a whole generation of young men to their slaughter on the premise, firmly believed by most of the british population at the time, that god was truly on their side, that this was the final battle between good and evil, "the war to end all wars." the british truly expected a biblical battle with biblical results, david v. goliath, israel v, babylon. but it didn't happen that way. from then on church attendance in britain declined rapidly. the church was an institution of the state, and that institution had taught the people to view their country as a theocratic monarchy much like israel had been. indeed, many believed great britain was merely a latterday continuation of david's kingdom. so there's a lot of bitterness surrounding songs of this nature.

[yaanufs]

Originally posted by jackvance88@Aug 17 2004, 10:53 AM

many believed great britain was merely a latterday continuation of david's kingdom. so there's a lot of bitterness surrounding songs of this nature.

Well I'm British and this sounds like it was made up by some academic who has never spoken to the British public. I've never spoken to a single person who has ever raised this issue, never mind shown a gram of biterness towards the church or the state because of WWI.

In addition, church attendance has fallen throughout the Europe and the world. To claim it fell in Britain because of a war (that was won, so people are generally proud), but to not make the same link to other countries who fought in the same war seems a bit selective in my mind.

People are leaving the Anglican church because they see the hypocrisy in it's leaders, they see the open wounds, they see other 'faiths' based in science with a far more credible sounding basis.

I can't agree with your theories on what drove the British people to reject the church. There is just too many factors that have been conveniently ignored.

[Matt]

On the other hand, the government does provide the bulk of the cost of maintaining and operating "redundant" churches of historical or architectural value.

Nope! The government doesn't do that, either! There is a private charity that helps fund redundant churches. The Lotto does provide some funds, but those grants are hard to get.

There may well be some government grants available, but these are also available to castles, old buildings and so on.