1. Featured article: Thoughts on Syncretism by COL Ken Lawson
2. Book Reviews:
Think: The Life of the Mind and the Love of God by John Piper, reviewed by LTJG John Freiberg.
Bodies of War: WW1 and the Politics of Commeration in America, 1919-1933 by Lisa Budreau; reviewed by 1LT Jonathan Newell
link to doctrinal statement of belief: http://www.agcchaplains.com/home.html
This blog has three main parts:
A) Featured academic articles relating to military ministry
B) Book Reviews
C) Pictures of activities of Chaplains and their military ministry
A. Featured Articles
Thoughts on Syncretism and Christianity
Kenneth E. Lawson
Overview
Much of Christendom today has been infected by syncretism. Whether we are discussing Eastern Orthodoxy, Roman Catholicism, or contemporary liberal Protestantism, the fact is that all three groups have practiced or are practicing a type of syncretism. According to the classic 1922 edition of the Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics, edited by James Hastings, syncretism in its religious sense means hybrid faith, an eclectic selection of various religious beliefs and practices that evolve into another form of religion. A 1988 dictionary defines syncretism as “The attempt or tendency to combine or reconcile differing philosophical or religious beliefs.”[i]
The intent of syncretism in its religious application is to blend or harmonize diverse religious expressions into one new manifestation of religious belief. Historically, both the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic Churches have freely and unashamedly practiced syncretism, as these religious groups expanded and absorbed rituals and religious practices from others and incorporated these beliefs and practices into what became their orthodox expressions of faith. Some obvious examples of syncretism in this context are the use of prayer beads, prayers for the dead, the use of fetishes as aids in worship, adoration of statues or icons, a priesthood empowered with special abilities to perform mysterious religious rites, veneration of relics, and much more. All of these practices are wholly absent from the Bible and the practices of the church in the first few centuries.[ii]
Historical Examples
The tendency to this syncretism or amalgamation of pagan beliefs into Christianity began shortly before the year 400, as the legalization and endorsement of Christianity in the Roman Empire created a surge of new members in Christian churches. Most of these were accepting of Christian baptism for political expediency or cultural acceptance rather than having experienced a genuine conversion. This led to a fusion of religious ideas, as the popular piety of semi-Christian people became the standard for faith and practice. This blending of religious ideas and practices created a hybrid Christianity in Europe and Asia, an adoption of pagan ideas into the Christian culture.
As Christianity expanded in the 400s into northern Europe, into Asia, and south into Africa, the monotheistic message of the Christian God replaced the polytheistic religions of those regions. The semi-converted pagans of these new lands accepted the message of the Christian God but were slow or unwilling to release themselves from the religious practices of their ancestors. A syncretistic tendency was immediately apparent in those baptized but largely unconverted peoples who sought a fusion between the monotheistic Christian God and their historic deities. Syncretism then fostered a new sanitized pagan mythology expressed in Christian language, the veneration of the saints being a most obvious example of a pagan practice of ancestor worship being transformed into devotion to deceased Christians. Popes of Rome and Patriarchs of Constantinople, as well as the leading Christian scholars of that period, were unable or unwilling to stop this syncretism, and in fact often willingly accepted the new practices as a way to smooth over the transition from a pagan to a Christian society.
The outcome of this syncretism was a unification of doctrines and deities, a sanitation or transformation of pagan practices into apparently Christian rituals and liturgies.[iii] James Hastings calls this manifestation a “cosmopolitan syncretism,” meaning that a synthesis of deities occurred in historic Christian communities by which the desire for unity superseded fidelity to a specific religious creed. Hastings states, “Idiosyncrasies were obliterated, and stress was laid, from the religious as well as from the political points of view, upon the all-embracing unity… The opportunity was often seized, and the risk was sometimes too much for the faith.”[iv]
Biblical Considerations
Here is the problem. If the Bible is the standard of Christian faith then there is no allowance for theological syncretism to non-Christian religions. If the Bible is not the standard, then what is the standard? How is orthodoxy evaluated? Who determines right from wrong?
The manifestation of religious syncretism is a common event in the Bible, and is universally condemned in both the Old Testament and the New Testament. For example, in the history of ancient Israel, Joshua around 1400 B.C. gathered the tribes of Israel and gave them his farewell address. As the people were about to settle in their promised land, there remained numerous unconquered peoples in the vicinity. The potential for the Jews to syncretize with their pagan neighbors was a great temptation. Joshua directly addressed this threat to religious purity, by first charging the Jews to “put away the gods” of the heathen and to follow his example, as he stated, “as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord” (Joshua 24:14-15).
Not all the leaders of ancient Israel obeyed the commands of the Lord in rejecting syncretism to the heathens around them. For example, when Moses climbed Mt. Sinai to receive the Ten Commandments carved in stone, the Jews reverted back to Egyptian mythology and created a golden calf which they worshipped. They sought to combine worship of the one true God with an Egyptian idol. The Lord’s response was anger and judgment (Exodus 32:1-9). For another of many examples, King Hoshea of Israel, who ruled the northern kingdom from about 732-722 B.C., allowed the apostasy of religious syncretism to infiltrate and permeate his kingdom, and received the judgment of God in the attack of the Assyrians upon his domain. The reason for this judgment from the Lord is plainly stated in the text, in that Hoshea allowed the people to “sin against the Lord their God” by their devotion to Egyptian gods, and that they “walked in the statutes of the heathen” (II Kings 17:5-8). Simply stated, the religious syncretism of the Jews in the Old Testament is condemned without exception in scripture.
The New Testament is replete with examples of the dangers of religious syncretism. The Apostle Paul taught that a Christian is not to be connected to paganism, is not to learn from them or select elements of their religious expressions to incorporate into the Christian faith. Paul plainly stated that a distinction was critical between Christianity and pagan religious practices and beliefs. He declared that Christians are not to be “yoked together” with unbelievers and their religious practices, since light cannot harmonize with darkness and that Christ has no fellowship with idolatry. Paul’s rebuke of syncretism is clearly expressed by him stating, “Come out from among them, and be ye separate, sayeth the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing, and I will receive you” (II Corinthians 6:14-18). Paul spoke on the same theme of opposing syncretism when he said to the Ephesian church, “Have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them” (Ephesians 5:11).[v]
A major syncretistic temptation facing the early church was in relation to Gnosticism. This sect was known for its secret mysteries, devotion to angels, mixing the nature of God as a composite of darkness and light, and having objections to the reality of the physical world. Gnosticism with its Asian roots was a major obstacle that the New Testament writers addressed and condemned. There was no attempt at syncretistic unity or an eclectic absorption of Gnostic ideas, for these beliefs were routinely rebuked and warned against by the Apostles.
For example, the Apostle John clearly had resistance to Gnostic beliefs in mind when he stated, “God is light, and in him is no darkness at all” (I John 1:5). It was to proud Gnostic teachers who boasted of achieving sinless unity with God that John stated, “If we say that we have so sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us” (I John 1:8). Clearly no attempt to syncretize with Gnostic beliefs was acceptable to the Apostle John.
On a missionary journey to Lystra, Paul and Barnabus were mistaken for the incarnation of pagan Greek gods (Acts 14:8-18). The superstitious citizens of Lystra desired to venerate Paul and Barnabus and offer sacrifices in honor of their appearance, but the Apostle Paul adamantly opposed such behavior. Here was an ideal opportunity for syncretism, where Paul and Barnabus could have accepted elements of the pagan religion of the people into their Christian message and been more successful and popular, but they refused to do so. Christianity after the apostolic era would not be so faithful to the uniqueness of the Christian message.
Practical Illustrations
In speaking of the history of syncretism and Christianity, James Hastings stated that syncretism of this kind was and is a betrayal of principles, “an attempt to secure unity at the expense of truth.”[vi] The fusion of historic Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy with the pagan religions they absorbed created a religious movement more inclined towards pantheism or henotheism than biblical monotheism. Contemporary liberal Protestantism has fallen into the same behavior, as pleas for ecumenical unity not only between Christian denominations but also between world religions is now common practice in groups such as the National Council of Churches and the World Council of Churches. In such movements for unity, the truth of Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior, as the only way of salvation for humanity, (Acts 4:12) is obliterated. The sad fact is that today very few Protestants are protesting anything.[vii]
Of all the places in worldwide Christendom that could represent deviant syncretism, perhaps as good an example as any is at the Pantheon in Rome. Walking into this gigantic domed building allows a visitor to enjoy the architecture of the best-preserved pagan building from all of ancient Europe. Truly this is an exceptional structure, which awes both tourists and religious enthusiasts. Originally completed as a pagan temple around 27 B.C., it was reconstructed and restored by Roman Emperor Hadrian in the year 125. Designated as the Pantheon, literally meaning “All the Gods,” this pagan temple was transferred to use by the Roman Catholic Church in 608, with Pope Boniface IV dedicating the structure to the Virgin Mary, naming it Santa Maria Rotunda. Michelangelo studied the dome of this building before he constructed the dome on St. Peter’s Basilica at the Vatican.
The Frommer’s Guide to Rome is correct when it states that the Pantheon is “the world’s best preserved ancient monument.” Located in a bustling urban area, a visitor to this building must walk through quaint medieval period side streets before entering the large plaza on which the Pantheon is based.[viii] The religious syncretism, which occurred in this location, is startling. White marble statues dedicated to pagan Roman deities were replaced with statues of Christian saints. The altar, which was used by pagan priests, is now replaced with the altar of Roman Catholicism. The priests of Roman Catholicism replaced the priests of pagan Rome. The huge oculus, the circular opening in the top of the dome used to allow the smoke of pagan animal sacrifices to escape and to let in sunlight, now allows the smoke from Roman Catholic incense burned during the Mass to likewise escape. The immense amount of animal blood shed in this building in pagan Roman rituals has been superseded in the very same location by the daily sacrifice of Christ in the Mass. Here at the historic Pantheon the syncretism was thorough and enduring. Veneration of pagan deities, the practice of heathen rituals, and the sacrifice of infidel priests, were all wholly transferred to the Roman Catholic Church. Occult rituals were simply sanitized with Christian names, allowing the syncretism to be seamless and complete.
Religious syncretism was not practiced in New Testament Christianity. An illustration of this historical fact is found in the church located in Thessalonica. Having responded enthusiastically to the preaching of the gospel, the Thessalonians were an example to other churches throughout the Greek peninsula and beyond. To their credit, Paul describes them as a people who “turned to God from idols to serve the living and true God” (I Thessalonians 1:9). They did not seek to blend with Greek religion, but turned from it.
The Lord Jesus Christ was not syncretistic. He exposed the religious leaders of his day as ritualistic frauds (Matthew 23:1-33). He said He was the Door, and that if anyone tried to enter heaven any other way, that person was a thief and a robber (John 10:1-10). He boldly declared a completely non-syncretistic statement when he declared, “I am the way, the truth, and the life; No one comes to the Father except through me” (John 14:6). According to the Bible, there are not many ways to heaven. There is one way, one door, to which all are invited.
Contemporary Concerns
Syncretism is not only foreign to the religion of the Bible, but is antagonistic and in opposition to the Scriptures. As historic Christendom amalgamated with its pagan neighbors, an ignorance of the Bible coupled with an increasing desire for a unified civil religion caused the Bible to be disregarded as the literal Word of God given to humanity for the purpose of providing a basis for “doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness” (II Timothy 3:16).
As historic Christians relegated the Bible to a lower position they simultaneously forgot or disregarded one of God’s essential attributes, His holiness. No pagan deity is remotely like the true God of heaven as revealed in both testaments of the Bible. The Judeo-Christian God never looks upon sin with the least bit of tolerance, and this necessarily extends to His will concerning the conduct of His children. The Lord rejects theological mixture or syncretism. God is holy and He requires us to be holy (Leviticus 11:44; I Peter 1:15-16). Many current Protestant churches are compromised by their low view of God, their mass marketing strategies, worldly music, entertainment mentality, and lack of expository preaching.[ix] Is this not syncretism to this fallen world?
We live in a world of religious appeasement. People are more concerned about offending their neighbor than they are concerned with offending the holiness and majesty of the Lord.[x] Compromise of the pristine gospel message is widespread. One may think of the almost universal acceptance of the theory of evolution; homosexual rights; atheistic public education; the ecumenical movement; and the declining sense of discernment of theological and practical issues in seminaries and churches today. For Bible-centered Christians, syncretism is a theological and moral disaster. The pollution of syncretism removes the power and blessing of the Lord. In Bible days, compromise and infidelity to the pristine message from the Lord resulted in “everyone doing that which was right in their own eyes,” (Judges 17:6; 21:25). In the absence of the blessing of God, there was no limit to how far the people could fall from the Lord. The situation is much the same today.
The genuine Christian is called into fellowship with God who “is light, and in Him is no darkness at all. If we say that we have fellowship with Him, and walk in darkness, we lie, and do not the truth” (I John 1:5-6). Therefore, it is absolutely necessary for separation from all forms of doctrinal syncretism, from pagan religious beliefs, academic speculations, or humanistic ideas that do not compliment the basic message of the Bible.
Syncretism in the Military Chaplaincy
Military chaplains will face pressures from syncretism. There will be pressure to conform, to fit in, to blend the teaching and preaching of chaplains into that which is not offensive and is easy to accept.
Here is when chaplains must decide who they serve. If the purpose of the chaplain’s military service is to get promoted in rank and to please his commanding officers, that chaplain will inevitably succumb to syncretism. He will try and fit in, not raise too many concerns. However, if the chaplain recognizes that he is called by God and serves the Lord above all else, his ministry will reject syncretism.
By military regulations, chaplains are to represent the faith group that endorses them to military ministry. The chaplain is responsible for accurately speaking and teaching according to his civilian denominational beliefs. Simply stated, that is the law. The Army regulation states, “Chaplains perform religious support when their actions are in accordance with the tenets or beliefs of their faith group.”[xi] Navy and Air Force regulations are similar.
By regulations, the U.S. military is not advocating a syncretistic military religion. Each chaplain is to properly represent the civilian group that endorses them to military ministry. Nevertheless, once in the military chaplain system, there will be relentless pressures to compromise, to accommodate, to appease other chaplains, officers or influential people. The pressures of syncretism will be ongoing.
For a military chaplain to avoid giving in to syncretism, he must remember several things. First, the emphasis must be on who saved the chaplain and called him into military ministry. If there is any other answer to this than Jesus Christ, the chaplain is leaning towards a fall into compromise. Second, to avoid syncretism, the chaplain must stay connected to his sending church. Having roots and accountability in the sending local church will help keep the chaplain grounded on non-negotiable principles for ministry. The third way to resist syncretism in military ministry is to stay active and connected with the chaplain’s endorsing agent. The endorser is the civilian group that speaks for the chaplain to the Department of Defense (DoD). Each chaplain must join an endorser. The DoD recognizes hundreds of endorsers. When the chaplain feels pressure to compromise from other chaplains, or from the military system, the endorser should be an outspoken advocate to defend the religious liberties of the chaplain.
The military chaplaincy is based on the concept of religious pluralism. The founding documents of the United States recognize that religious liberty is a foundational tenant of our government. The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states, in part, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...” Simply stated, that means the government is not to create a state religion nor is it to prevent freedom of religious expression. We are to be a pluralistic nation.
Pluralism is not ecumenism. While pluralism recognizes the legal right for a religious group to exist, ecumenism desires that doctrinal distinctions between religious groups be downplayed or removed. Pluralism recognizes individual religious liberty while ecumenism attempts to downplay doctrinal distinctives for the sake of external unity.[xii]
The U.S. military chaplaincy exists in a pluralistic environment. That means chaplains recognize other chaplains as U.S. citizens with the right of free exercise of religion. That does not mean all chaplains have to believe the same doctrine. But it does mean that all chaplains must recognize the constitutional rights of other chaplains. If a chaplain cannot function in a pluralistic environment then they will not do well in military chaplaincy ministry.
Pluralism rejects ecumenism and syncretism. Ecumenism is closely related to syncretism. Military chaplains supportive of the ecumenical movement will have a theology of syncretism. They will compromise. They will seek to fit it. They will not emphasize doctrine. Some military chaplains cannot tell the difference between ecumenism and pluralism. They expect all chaplains to dilute doctrinal distinctive for the sake of external unity. When chaplains refuse to support ecumenism, they can be accused as not supporting pluralism. This is not true. Ecumenism and pluralism is not the same thing. In many ways they are opposites. The ecumenist attempts to dilute doctrinal differences while the pluralist recognizes the rights of others to have doctrinal differences. The ecumenist attempts unity while the pluralist recognizes diversity.
The chaplain that seeks to honor the Lord and minister the Word of God with doctrinal purity and integrity does have a place in military ministry. Such chaplains are desperately needed in military ministry. The threat of syncretism will always be there. But, like in civilian ministry, if the military chaplain seeks the Lord first; remains faithful to the scriptures; stays connected to his home church and his endorsing agency; such a chaplain can have a thriving military ministry blessed of the Lord.
[i] James Hastings, “Syncretism,” Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics, (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1922), p. 155. Webster’s New Riverside University Dictionary, (Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1988), p.1174.
[ii] Alexander Hislop, The Two Babylons, (London: 1865). John E. Millheim, Let Rome Speak for Herself, (Schaumburg, IL: Regular Baptist Press, 1982). Loraine Boettner, Roman Catholicism, (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing, 1986).
[iii] Kenneth S. Latourette, A History of Christianity: Beginnings to 1500, (New York: Harper and Row Publishers, 1975), pp. 184, 188, 204.
[iv] James Hastings, “Syncretism,” pp. 155-156.
[v] Ernest Pickering, Biblical Separation: The Struggle for a Pure Church, (Schaumburg, IL: Regular Baptist Press, 1979). Thomas P. Hill, Wolves in Sheep’s Clothing: False Prophets in the Church, (Grand Rapids, MI: Master Productions, 2009).
[vi] For more details on this tragic theme, see J. Gresham Machen, Christianity and Liberalism, (Grand Rapids: Eerdman’s Publishing, 1923). Francis A. Schaeffer, A Christian Manifesto, (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 1981).
[vii] A remedy to this malaise is presented in Fred Moritz, Be Ye Holy: The Call to Christian Separation, (Greenville, SC: Bob Jones University Press, 1994).
[viii] Darwin Porter & Danforth Prince, Frommer’s Guide to Rome, (New York: Wiley Publishing, 2003), p. 4.
[ix] Gary Gilley, This Little Church Went to Market, (Darlington, Great Britain: Evangelical Press, 2005).
[x] For more details on this theme see Richard A. Fowler & H. Wayne House, The Christian Confronts His Culture, (Chicago: Moody Press, 1983). C. Everett Koop and Francis Schaeffer, Whatever happened to the Human Race, (Westchester, IL: Crossway Books, 1983).
[xi] Religious Support, FM1-05, (Department of the Army, 2002), p. 1.
[xii] Sinclair B. Ferguson, David F. Wright, J.I. Packer, New Dictionary of Theology, (Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press, 1988), pp. 219-220.
Kenneth Lawson is an U.S. Army chaplain with the rank of Colonel, currently stationed at Fort McCoy, Wisconsin. He is endorsed by the Associated Gospel Churches, Greenville, South Carolina.
B. Book Review-
1. John Piper- Think: The Life of the Mind and the Love of God. Reviewed by John Freiberg
As the Apologia group is discussing this book next month I decided that I would break my Piper fast by reading Think! The Life of the Mind and the Love of God. Piper is the perfect person to write this book as he is well known for coining the profoundly true phrase, “God is most glorified in us when we are most satisfied in Him”. The idea of being satisfied with God makes most in our culture think of engaging our hearts in glorifying God. However in this book, Piper shows that glorifying God and being deeply satisfied with Him involves the mind as much as it does the heart. Perhaps even more importantly, He shows that the heart and mind are not and cannot be at odds with each other in this endeavor.
Highlights:
- Jesus’ Response to Relativists: the boldness and clarity with which Piper exposits Christ’s dealings with the relativistic Pharisees was powerful. I am so used to thinking of relativism as a modern (or “post-modern”), but the human heart and mind has always been sinful and has always looked for ways to manipulate the truth for personal gain. I was challenged that I don’t always see how destructive and truly evil moral relativism is. What power we have in the Truth of the Gospel which has the power to set people free from the bondage of sinful thinking!
- Anti-Intellectualism: This section got a bit rabbit-traily for me but I appreciated Piper taking the time to distinguish between “child-like faith” and child-like thinking. Big difference.
- The Necessity of Scripture in Knowing and Loving God: This wasn’t necessarily a distinct section but rather a clear theme that ran through the whole book.
- Chapter Two: One of the major thoughts driving this book comes from Jonathan Edwards. Its a great thought about the nature of the Trinity but Piper presents it as Gospel truth without providing any Scriptural support. He just takes Edwards proposition and builds on it, which made me a bit uneasy.
- Size: This book is at once too large and too small. I believe that Piper could have presented the main point of his book – that “the work of thinking serves the experience of worship and love” (p.36) and that knowing truth outside of God is ultimately folly -in a more direct, concise way. Solomon said that with one verse (Prov 1:7). On the other hand I felt it was too small to fully explore all the boxes he opens along the way to explaining his main point.
- Missiology: Although he touches on this here and there, I wish that Piper would have dealt more with the implications and practice of glorifying God with the mind for those who are illiterate or amongst a people group with no written language and/or Scripture in their language.
- But what about relativism? It poses as humble by saying: “We mere mortals cannot know what the truth is – or even if there is any universal truth.” This sounds humble. But look carefully at what is happening. It’s like a servant saying: “I am not smart enough to know which person here is my master – or if I even have a master.” The result is that he doesn’t have to submit to any master and can be his own master. His vaunted weakness is a ruse to cover his rebellion against his master. p. 112-3
- When you are deeply peaceful and confident that, because of Christ, God will bring you safely to his eternal kingdom and be the all-satisfying Treasure of your life forever, then you are free to see the truth, and love the truth, and speak the truth no matter what, and joyfully spread a passion for the truth whose name is Jesus p. 116
- The mind provides the kindling for the fires of the heart. p. 184
- (discussing I Cor 8:1-11) ...Paul had said love builds up (v.1). That implies that any knowledge that does not stand in the service of love is not real knowing. It is prostituted knowing. It’s as though God put surgical tools in our hands and taught us how to save the sick, but we turned them into a clever juggling act while the patients died. Knowing and thinking exist for the sake of love- for the sake of building people up in faith. Thinking that produces pride instead of love is not true thinking. We only imagine that we are thinking. God does not see it as thinking. It’s not surgery; it’s juggling. p.160
Overall this was a great book. I am excited to discuss it at Apologia. 3 out of 4 stars.
2.
Bodies of War: World War I and the Politics of Commemoration in America
Reviewed by 1LT Jonathan Newell, MDiv, 368 EN BN, Londonderry, New Hampshire
Word Count: 711
While the battlefields of the Revolution and Civil War together with national memorials to WWII, Korea, and Vietnam receive thousands of visitors every year, America’s grandiose monuments to WWI lie overseas in relative obscurity. Why is it that such national memorials, combining imposing architecture with battlefield locations have faded from the nation’s collective memory? Lisa Budreau’s Bodies of War answers the question, showing how social and political dynamics shaped America ’s memorialization of the war dead and led to a “diffusion of memory” about America
At the war’s conclusion, the United States U.S. government, however, gave next of kin the choice of having the deceased returned home or buried in Europe . Despite French opposition to the policy, many families chose the return of the remains, leading to a logistical and bureaucratic nightmare. Lacking clear mandates, government officials struggled to facilitate the identification, collection, disposition, and transportation of the remains from scattered temporary graves to either stateside burial or internment in a cemetery on European soil.
As the questions regarding internment settled, the issue of memorializing the dead grew. Accustomed to the tradition of monument-littered Civil War battlefields, Americans sought to turn the battlefields of France League of Nations tarnished people’s views on the war’s purpose while states, immigrant groups, veterans’ organizations, and women’s groups pursued their own agendas. Attempting to provide direction, the government formed the American Battle Monuments Commission. Chaired by General John Pershing, but dominated by Senator David Reed, the commission envisioned overseas cemeteries as pilgrimage destinations that would forever enshrine the American dead. In order to display national unity and strength, the commission imposed strict regulations on uniformity of cemetery layout and headstone design. These regulations mandated chapels and cross-shaped headstones, reflecting a Protestant civil religion. Making no effort to construct a national monument on American soil, the agency commissioned three major classical Beaux Arts style monuments and eight minor memorials in Europe, hoping to focus the national memory on the overseas cemeteries and monuments.
As memorial construction neared completion, the government attempted to stir enthusiasm for pilgrimages to these monuments by sponsoring tours for the Gold Star mothers and wives to visit their loved ones’ graves. Since the Civil War, American mothers had been honored as those who sacrificed their own children for the cause of liberty. As members of this “republican motherhood,” American women could no longer mourn in private as their European counterparts did. Instead, patriotic fervor transformed personal mourning into a public display of pride through the gold star banners. This powerful symbol gave the women a sense of solidarity and organization, enabling their rise as a powerful social and political lobby. Even though dogged by controversy and marred by segregation, thousands of mothers and wives participated in these tax-payer funded ocean voyages and tours of France. Yet the tours failed to firmly fix the idea of pilgrimage to America’s war monuments in the popular consciousness. With interest stifled by economic hardship and a new European conflict, the monuments slipped into obscurity.
Thoroughly researched and well-illustrated, Budreau’s work makes an excellent contribution to the study of American historical memory. She tells the larger narrative of the postwar memorialization decisions by weaving together the stories of Soldiers and families; the roles and struggles of minorities, women, and veterans; and the shifting social and political values of the 1920s and 30s. She provides a penetrating analysis of how democracies struggle to achieve unity of memory in the midst of diversity. In the case of WWI, she concludes that democratic choice in the formation of national memory led to conflict, resulting in no unifying, collective memory. Thus, Budreau’s analysis of the WWI memorials serves as a reminder of the limitations of government’s power as the arbiter of national memory and as a challenge to our democracy as it grapples with the identity and meaning of the current Long War.
