I was recently watching a DVD documentary called Shut Up and Sing which followed American county music trio the Dixie Chicks in the wake of the controversy that surrounded remarks made by their lead singer during a concert in London. On the eve of the invasion of Iraq she made an impromptu remark that they were ashamed the president of the United States was from the same state as them. This was picked up first by the Guardian and then by sections of media until it quickly snowballed into a huge scale campaign against the group, including boycotts and, in the extreme death threats.
Several things struck me watching this. One of which was how scary it is, in this day and age, prominent figures can say on live television that women "deserve to be slapped around" and have the female anchor person nodding in agreement and this is far more acceptable than a personal view expressed about a political leader. Somewhere there are some seriously skewed values at work there.
But it also got me thinking on the differences between Britain and America. In Britain we tend to view our leaders, whether government or monarchy, as people who can do next to nothing right, whose every action is deserving of criticism and skepticism. It almost becomes a mark of British-ness to be unhappy with and critical of our leaders. Whereas, in the States, or at least in certain sections of the American population (because I'm aware that over the past few years America has become an increasingly divided country and these issues are kind of core to that divide) criticism of the president would seem to be akin to criticism of the nation and tantamount to treason. America enshrines freedom of speech within the constitution and yet the exercise of this freedom to criticise America or her leaders has become almost taboo and certainly unpatriotic.
So blind faith or cynicism - neither of them seem a particularly healthy option for a national identity or a sense of belonging. It then got me thinking that there is probably something of a parallel that happens in our attitudes towards faith and church in particular. On the one hand there are the complainers for whom nothing is ever good enough and on the other those for whom the way things are done, and especially our beliefs themselves, must never be questioned or re-evaluated as this would be tantamount to heresy. Again, neither attitude would seem to be very helpful in the formation of a healthy faith. The willingness to question and be questioned whilst maintaining a respect for what is there, to reconsider and re-evaluate without losing faith, I am increasingly coming to believe is part of healthy growth as a Christian. The more we have things set in stone, the more limits we have on our concept of and understanding of God and, perhaps, the less able we are to fully connect with him.
But that's a topic I plan to maybe return to at greater length another time.
