«
»

On The Fourth of July

Every year, all over America, churches partake in a celebration of the State, the Fourth of July (you could throw in memorial day here too). You’ll see high flying flags and symbols of America and American power all over the various ‘sanctuaries’ and church buildings, you’ll see those little yard flags lining the parking lots, you’ll see the pastors, preachers, and priests wearing their patriotic clothing, and you’ll probably sing a song or two about America. Your church may even go as far as pledging to the American flag and singing the National Anthem.

I like America; I am thankful for the various freedoms I have, I’m impressed every four years with our peaceful change of power, and I appreciate my ability to write a blog without fear of governmental response. I am not, however, about to take part in singing the songs of America, nor in pledging my allegiance to a flag, and I openly admit that I feel sick whenever I see masses of Christians doing just that.

Perhaps my hermeneutics are a touch off, but throughout the entirety of the New Testament I see both Jesus and Paul doing and saying things that stand against the empire. I cannot see Paul pledging to the American flag, nor can I see him singing “God Bless America,” instead I see Paul pledging only to Jesus and being ridiculed and persecuted for that position. Yet we a church in love with the state, a church that sees no issue with pledging allegiance to the state, and church that’s lost itself.

Jesus taught about two men not being able to serve two masters, he was talking, at the time, about God and Money, but I wonder if He’d now add a third party into that parable were he to give it today, would He add in State? Would He try to tell today’s American Christians that you cannot pledge your allegiance to a State and to Christ? Let’s not forget the order that those pledges are usually said, growing up heres how we did it: I pledge to the American Flag, I pledge to the Baptist Flag, I pledge to the Christian Flag, and I pledge to the Bible. Am I to understand from that my first allegiance goes to American flag? Am I to understand that I can align myself with multiple entities, most of which actually stand at odds with each other at times?

Instead putting things in proper perspective, we get this:

actually heard pastor say this at funeral: ‘not all patriotic americans are christians, but all Christians are patriotic Americans’ Yikes

Are we really American Christians? Is that our identity? Or are we Christians who live in America? Which of the two monikers do we care most about?

Think about that. Join me in not singing the anthem, join me in not pledging to any other but Christ, join me in not selling out your faith for something of this world.


email2friend

This entry was posted Friday, June 26th, 2009 at 6:26 am and is filed under america, fail, faith, religion. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

  • Amy
    I just want say that I not only get what you are saying, but I whole heartedly agree. I am forever grateful and often proud to be an American. As such, I acknowledge and accept my responsibilities as a citizen and my civic duty. I do not, however, pledge absolute allegiance to any ideal nor any thing outside of God. In as much as my country upholds those absolute ideals then I am "all in". Should she fail, then I refuse to blindly foreswear my absolute allegiance. Get real if you honestly believe the "no matter what" sentimental over statements.
  • Chadholtz
    mattdross,

    You say allegiance *simply* means loyalty or devotion. I agree. But I don't see how Christians can call that "simply."

    Scripture does not command us to give our allegiance to other things. Certainly not empires. In fact, it is quite adamant against offering allegiance to empire. On my blog I have study notes on the book of Revelation which I just taught in my church - it is striking how every chapter is a condemnation of any and all swearing of loyalties to government.

    Paul does not say we are to swear loyalty to gov't. in Rom. 13. He says they are simply under the rule of God (whether they know it or not). Paul is merely telling a minority church who is under the scrupulous eyes of Rome to not do anything that needlessly draws attention to them so that they can carry out the mission of Christ.

    As for marriage (and I would add the church), that is one area where we are given guidance for being in covenant. These are covenant relationships with another partner which is a signpost of the larger covenant God made with us. And it is within a relationship where it is understood that both parties are committed to the mission of God and have Jesus as their head. We cannot make a covenant or pledge allegiance to any nation since we are not both naming Jesus as our Lord and claiming that our goal is to make disciples for Christ for the transformation of the world. That is not the mission statement of the USA, is it?


  • mattdross
    Just to clarify. Are you saying that Christians should only be loyal to God? and only give devotion to God?
  • Chadholtz
    Yes.

    Are you suggesting that God is OK with idols, just as long as you give your allegiance to them some of the time?


  • mattdross
    No. But I would suggest that God desires for me to be loyal to my commitments and devoted to my family. Of course, he is my primary loyalty, but service to him requires me to be loyal to many other things. Whatever I do, I want to do it as to the Lord rather than for me. I believe God has called me to be steward of many things, and to serve him in many relationships. All these relationships require the loyalty and devotion of a servant.
  • Chadholtz
    The commitments you name are covenant relationships santioned by Christ. They are pictures of the larger covenant God has made with us.

    Surely you don't wish to argue that you are a devoted servant of a nation in the same way you are to your wife, kids or church, do you?

    We are not citizens of any nation but of the kingdom of God. Our loyalty does not lie with any empire, no matter how good they may seem. It is with God alone. Within that loyalty to God we are called to love our neighbor - not pledge our allegiance to them.

  • mattdross
    My relationship with my nation is organically related to my relationship with my family. The family is the building block of a nation. Symbiosis (cf. Johannes Althusius) and Sphere Sovereignty (cf. Abraham Kuyper) seem to make much better sense of the biblical evidence than does "The Whore of Babylon" approach (cf. Thomas Muenster) that treats all political commitments as if they were commitments to Satan.

    In the Bible, national identities were associated with families. Israel was the descendant of Abraham. Arabic tribes were the descendants of Ishamel. Israel was further divided into 12 tribes based on kinship and clan. The New Testament treats governments similarly. In 1 Peter 2:13-25, Peter entreats his readers to be subject for the Lord's sake to every human institution." He then immediately follows this section with a discussion of family relationships (1 Peter 3:1-7). Notice he begins the section on family relationships with the word "LIKEWISE." Peter seemed to understand there to be an organic relationship between empire and family.

    Similarly, our modern concepts of political responsibility begin in the family. Political concepts like labor, charity, duty, loyalty, and education all originate in the familial relationships. Political life is organically related to family life. In short, because the family is in covenant relationship with God and political life is an extension of the family, political life is also in covenant relationship with God.

    This is precisely why Rome is referred to as "The Whore of Babylon." Governments exist to punish evil and praise righteousness (1 Pet 2:14). To the degree that governments praise evil and punish righteousness they cease to behave like true governments and incur the wrath of God.
  • Chadholtz
    Mattdross,

    Even if I agreed with your redefining of terms above or your misinterpretation of passages such as 1Peter 2 and Revelation, you have failed to justify any act of pledging one's allegiance to that which they have certain commitments or obligations.

    1 Peter 2 is about keeping one's nose clean and enduring suffering just as Christ did without retaliation. Peter, as with all the NT writers, had a different eschatological view - they believed Jesus would be returning very soon. Very soon this empire would cease to be. The instructions in 1 Peter 2 and Rom. 13 are designed to give people hope that God is in control and to remind Christians that it is not part of the identity of the church to be a trouble maker and insolent. Jesus was neither with regards to the Roman empire (it was not his concern. Speaking of which, can you picture Jesus pledging allegiance to anything other than God?)

    The 'political life' you speak of as it relates to family is very different from politics in the national sense. "Politics" in the former is part of every sphere of our life - it means to be in relation with another. In this sense, everything is political. This does not mean, however, that you can then change the meaning of "political life" to national politics or empires and say they are in covenant relationship with God just like a family. That is just ridiculous. The USA is not some new Israel. The USA does exist to live out her covenantal relationship with the God of Abraham.

    John calls Rome the "whore of Babylon" not because it praises evil or doesn't punish unrighteousness but because it demands allegiance. It has on its head the "blasphemous names" such as "lord, divine, god, lord" and demands the citizens of Rome to offer their offerings or prayers or their pledges of allegiance to the beast. Those who do so, who offer their allegiance, are idolaters.

    Don't confuse being a dutiful person or a good citizen or even being grateful for the freedoms you enjoy with pledging your allegiance to the false source of those freedoms. The source is God - not America.


  • mattdross
    I whole heartedly agree with some of your conclusions:

    - The United States is not a new Israel
    - Rome was called the "whore of Babylon" because it blasphemously identified itself (I would also want to add that this is a form of praising evil)

    If you could explain to me how the Pledge of Allegiance idolatrously identifies the nation (rather than God) as the source of freedom , I would also agree that it is an idolatrous declaration. However, the pledge clearly states that the republic is "under God" and that it is "with" liberty. The word "with" seems to imply that the nation was conferred with liberty from God rather than it being the autonomous giver of liberty.

    If you believe our modern governmental structures don't live up to the standards of the Pledge or the Declaration of Independence, I will certainly agree with you. However, I believe that each of these can serve as good reminders to our current administrations that the liberty we enjoy is conferred to us from God.

    Regarding the symbiotic relationship between family and nation, I am only stating that the the duties and privelidges of a nation are seminally founded in the family. If you don't want to say that the nation is in covenantal relationship with God, I'm fine with that, but I do think it is extremely important that we think of the nation as a conglomerate of family units. Furthermore, I think it is helpful to note that our modern understanding of family is much more restrictive that the biblical understanding of family.

  • mattdross
    I really don't know why I'm commenting on this. I guess I'm just bored. The whole argument seems a little silly to me. For starters, it's ridiculous to equate "allegiance" with a form of worship. "Allegiance" simply means something like "loyalty or devotion." In addition to giving allegiance to God, it can be given to governments, people, causes, etc., and in many cases this allegiance is good.

    Obviously no Christian should give his primary or ultimate allegiance to anyone other than God, but Scripture commands us to give allegiance to many things other than God. We should give honor to those who deserve honor (Rom 13:7). A marital vow is a form of swearing allegiance to a spouse. Jesus seemed to pretty serious about dishonoring this allegiance (Matt 5:26-37). Paul even reminds us that we owe enough allegiance to governing authorities to subject ourselves to their leadership (Rom 13:1). If we did away completely with the concept of allegiance in the political sphere, then familial loyalty would be impossible, orderly society would be counter-intuitive, and a consumer market would not be able to efficiently produce. All group dynamics are based on some concept of loyalty and devotion.

    That being said, I don't particularly like the "Pledge of Allegiance." It seems a little silly to give loyalty and devotion to a flag. I like to think that the first "and" in the pledge is a form of hendiadys (the flag is represetative of the republic instead of a separate idea worthy of allegiance). I this sense I might say the pledge of allegiance meaning that I promise to be a good citizen: pay my taxes, behave lawfully, do jury duty, etc. I'm not worshiping the state, but behaving the way Paul encouraged Roman citizens to behave in Romans 13.

    In regard to your first point, I tend to agree. I also think its a little awkward for churches to hold Independence Day services. However, I think you're throwing out the kitty with litter box when you vow not to say the pledge at all. Just behave appropriately in the circumstances God placed you. You may think the pledge is silly (as I do), but you're behaving like a whiny middle school girl if you refuse to say it in all circumstances.
  • I dont pledge my allegiance to anyone. I am like the Jehovas Witnesses, and possibly Obama. American isnt the number one country in the world, but it is definitely in the top 3. I wont discuss the others.

    And Jesus hated the empire. And so forth. . . hmmm. . Actually I really just wanted to say that you had a cool new web design, but I hate it when people comment on a blog post without mentioning the blog post.
  • Matt, I have been waiting to reply to this until I had a better grasp of my own tangled thoughts on this. Forgive the aphorisms Here I go:

    1. Empire is bad because of the corrupt nature of power.

    2. National Identity is not bad because of the essential goodness of community and cooperation

    3. Freedom is a good thing because it is preferable to the alternative

    So, I am a patriotic in the sense that I readily identify with my nation, people, culture heritage, etc. I identify with the commonality and community I have with America. I am patriotic in the sense that I celebrate freedom and personal liberty. I am patriotic in the sense that I oppose the enemies of my nation. I am patriotic in the sense that I am filled with personal pride and happiness when my people come together and accomplish something beautiful and great.

    I am not patriotic in the sense that I am not nationalistic. I am not patriotic in the sense that I do not support imperial ambitions. I am not patriotic in the sense that I will not allow my preference for the political home team to ever be confused with my spiritual life.

  • Chadholtz
  • Hey Matt,

    Since you are in ATL, we should all hang out. We are moving into our apartment in July and dont have any furniture, but you guys are welcome over anytime as long as dinner on pillows is fine.
  • We'd love to, let me know when you'd like to (email: matt@themattscott.com). I think I remember Nick saying you guys were in Duluth, is that right?

blog comments powered by Disqus
ramblings-theology-my thoughts