(final thoughts) On America

In what seems like a previous life, I was a red blooded patriot, after September 11th I wanted to join the military (I was, of course, too young, and am thankful that I didn’t). I lauded at a friend that said he would never join the military, I told him I thought he was a coward, I cringed when I heard that someone actually voted against the war in Afghanistan. I would have voted for GW Bush again and again and again. I fully supported the War in Iraq and joined in the calling of those who didn’t cowards and terrible Americans.

A lot has changed.

This is the third post I have put on this topic, and it will be the last (for a while). I got into a brief twitter discussion with a friend this morning/afternoon and I wanted to address the issue one final time for clarity.

The first question he asked was what my definition of allegiance was. A good question, so let me clarify: Allegiance, from the Apple Dictionary: (as a loyal mac user, the Apple Dictionary is my first choice in dictionaries)

loyalty or commitment of a subordinate to a superior or of an individual to a group or cause

One could look at this rather innocuously and see that in theory it may not be a terrible thing, but to extrapolate this out the system becomes untenable in relation to Christianity, perhaps even in relation to America itself.

If we are to believe that we should swear fealty to America because of a passage such as Romans 13 (which commands us to obey the law, but does not say anything about swearing oaths or pledging allegiance to the empire) then this must be expanded to every Christian everywhere. That would include Christians living in countries like North Korea, China, and Iran. Please, if you’re going to use Romans 13 to tell me that I should be ok with swearing allegiance to my native country, then by all means express that same sentiment to Christians in those countries. (Apologies here to those that are not fans of Kant, and don’t appreciate my using his argument)

Another point made by my friend was that we swear allegiance to our husbands/wives. At first blush I would say that two equate allegiance to a system w/ allegiance to a person would be an unwise comparison, but that comparison is one we’re essentially making anyways in stating that God is a person/being, and not a system. Of course I would equate God as larger than simply being defined as a person or even a system, I would really equate God as being larger than a definition. Since that is not conducive to the argument at hand, we’ll work from the matrix of God as person.

Thus the question is can one swear allegiance to both a god and a human? An interesting question because, at times, I’m likely to say that I would cast aside a god for my wife, and of course at other times I would say I’m willing to cast aside a god for many things. The first question to mind is, do we really swear allegiance (According to the above definition) to another human? I certainly hope that my wife doesn’t swear allegiance to me, nor do I swear allegiance to her. I don’t view myself as superior nor do I view her as such, instead we’re to be equal, not with one lording the other. To bring a true Christian ethic to all relationships they would need to be viewed this way, as neither superior to the other.

With God, however, I will acknowledge a superior/subordinate relationship, and thus allegiance, but perhaps we need better terminology for our interpersonal relationships than to simply say allegiance.

One final note on this particular aspect: If we do indeed compare our allegiance on an interpersonal level with our allegiance to the US (or any nation), the question must be raised as to what happens when the other party becomes abusive or unfaithful? If we swear our allegiance to the US and it betrays our love by murdering in our name, what then? If it hurts us by propagating a path that is going to mean consequences for our children, what then? If the object of our allegiance acts violently towards others, what then? To quote Hauerwas

And when they do that, you exactly betray – at least, as Christians – what we should have learned through the Cross: that the attempt to make life meaningful, even life that has died, through further violence, is absolutely futile.

So, even if it’s ok to swear allegiance to a country and God, I could never, on Christian standing, swear allegiance to this country. It’s bloodstained and dirty, it’s consumeristic, it’s oppressive to the “least of these”. When you can get arrested for taking care of the “least of these” then you’re not in a country worthy of allegiance.

—————————————
As I was typing out this blog post, I received a comment on my previous post that warrants a response. I’m not going to quote the comment in full here, but please do take the time to read it (that entire commenting thread is rather interesting, if you have a few minutes to spare I’d recommend reading through all of it). Chad Holtz also addresses the comment, here, but there are two points I’d like to take a moment to respond to, if only in passing. Both come from the last paragraph, quoted here:

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.

First off, I highly doubt Paul would go around stating “Just sing the anthem of the Empire if you’re at a gladiatorial bout. Everyone else is doing it, so it’s OK”. I’m quite sure Christians were killed for their resistance to doing such things.

My second objection has nothing to do with the substance of your argument, instead it’s with the statement “whiny middle school girl”. I could care less about the ad personam, but I must protest at your usage of the word “girl”. You betray a rather patriarchal outlook, and a lack of political correctness that is unfortunately prevalent in evangelical circles. While I acknowledge that, in blogging, I open my domain up to such attitudes, I will call them out when I see them, hopefully to the benefit of all parties involved.


email2friend
  • Chadholtz
    Nate,
    The short answer is it is a parallel to Paul's injunction to "love one another with brotherly affection; outdo one another in showing honor." (Rom. 12:10).

    Or an even shorter paraphrase of Peter: Don't be a belligerent ass.

  • Sorry to everyone asking/waiting on a response, I won't be able to put any concentrated effort into the blog until the weekend. After I do respond to these comments I will make no more responses on this topic, it's beginning to annoy the hell out of me.
  • Nate
    What is your take on 1 Peter 2:13-17? (Especially the end of verse 17.)
  • Derek Foster
    No time at the moment to write anything lengthy cause I'm about to do schoolwork, so I'll just throw out some quick thoughts (this is in response to the question at hand and to all of the opinions expressed throughout the course of these 3 last posts, not just :

    1) "Pledge allegiance to the Flag...and to the Republic" is an statement that needs clarification. It depends on what is meant by those words that determines whether it's appropriate for us to be reciting them. Does it mean full-fledged, unquestioning allegiance to our Country (it doesn't, obviously, I'm just throwing it out there)? Are we pledging to a system, or to the people within our country? Semantics changes everything here depending on what those words mean.

    2) We live in the United States in 2009, not the Roman Empire in the 1st Century. While I believe it's necessary to look to the NT as a guide for how we are to behave towards our government, we have to make sure we're extrapolating the right principles from Jesus and the NT writers and not just citing verses/passages out of context. We have to ask numerous questions about the situation itself and then derive an application for us today. This should go without saying, but I think the point needs emphasis.
  • [Aargh. Disqus. Ugh.]

    Although it was your recent Holiday weekend that occasioned your comments, I think it would be constructive to forget the America-specific part of this discussion: really, similar comments apply to most nations. Ok, a lot of us don't have pledges of allegiance (footnote: Ok, the UK introduced one a few years ago, but only for those being naturalized), but we do have national anthems with various patriotic sentiments.

    And it seems to me that we have to be most cautious with all of them. We're often reminded from the pulpit that money, status, power can become our gods, our idols, if we're not careful: and that, without an explicit pledge of allegiance. When Christ said "no one can serve two masters", money was uppermost in his mind, but it hardly seems a large stretch to apply the same principle to nation.

    It's tempting to say that identifying strongly with "home" is fine; that "my people" is laudable, and that things only start to go wrong when it gets to "mine above all others". But Peter tells us to live as "aliens and strangers" (or "foreigners and exiles") - associating strongly with the systems of this world is something he discourages - in the same section as he urges his readers to be subject to the emperor.

    [as an aside, the 1990s use of the term "politically correct" was adopted by those who did not use inclusive language to belittle those who did ... so it's odd indeed to charge someone with not being politically correct, it seems to me.]
  • mattdross
    It seems as if you may have misunderstood my argument. When I say we should behave appropriately in our given circumstances, I am not saying "Everyone else is doing it, it must be o.k." I whole-heartedly agree that there are times when Christians should rebel against institutionalized evil. The problem with Rome was that it encouraged a form of emperor worship. If I were asked to offer worship to President Washington or President Obama, I certainly hope I would have the courage to rebel no matter what the cost.

    What I fail to see from your posts is a statement that clearly shows how "allegiance" equals "worship." I don't believe I have a lot of national pride. I would hesitate to call the United States a good nation or even one of the best. I would agree with you that it is bloodstained, dirty, consumeristic, and inhospitable. But I am a citizen nonetheless. With citizenship comes certain civic duties. In certain circumstances it may be appropriate to remind myself of my civic duties through a pledge. This is the only meaning the pledge is intended to convey. When I talk about allegiance to country, I have in mind things like voting, paying taxes, obeying the law, and giving honor. Paul positively affirmed many of these practices in Romans 13:7. Peter made even stronger statements in 1 Peter 2:13: "Be subject for the Lord's sake . . . to the emperor as supreme"

    When governments prohibit the worship of God or encourage the worship of the state, Christians have the responsibility to rebel no matter what the cost. I don't believe that saying the "Pledge of Allegiance" is even remotely comparable to the offering of incense to Caesar. The pledge contains no implicit assumption or explicit statement that confers divine status to the nation or its leaders. As a matter of fact, the modern version of the pledge even explicitly states that the republic is "under God". This seems to align very nicely with Rom 13 and 1 Pet 2 which claim that the authority of human institutions is derived from God.

    Regarding my statements that compared you to a "whiny middle school girl", I think this provides a good illustration of my argument (i.e. our behavior should take our circumstances into account). Obviously the moderator of this forum does not find "politically incorrect" and "patriarchical" language very humorous or helpful in arguments. Although I do find this language humorous and occassionally helpful, I will refrain from further using it in this circumstance. If the language gave any offense, I apologize. It was my first post in this forum and I was unaware that politically incorrect language was unwelcome. Although I will refrain from further using it in this context, I will use it again in other circumstances. I believe patriarchal and politically incorrect language can be very helpful in making a point in some circumstances. I feel certain that Paul and Jesus both used language that was politically incorrect in certain circumstances (cf. Matt 12:34 and Gal 5:12)
  • Chadholtz
    Well since we are sharing true confessions, I was in the Navy from 93-2001. Got out in May just before 9/11 and was tempted to sign back up right after. I used to think there was something wrong with people if they didn't put time in serving their country.

    How things have changed
  • It's funny how much our trajectories parallel.

    Little known fact about me: I voted for Bush in 2004. And up until 2005-06 (a pretty pivotal year) I was completely on board with American nationalism, more or less. I guess I just didn't question it much.

    Thank God that was before I started seriously blogging. If I could go back in time, I'd kick my own ass.

    My view shifted so much that I took it upon myself to dismantle and deconstruct the whole notion of American nationalism post-9/11 in my undergraduate senior thesis. I started blogging about the same time I began research on that project.

    And now, there is no turning back. Keep it up bro, as far as I'm concerned it's only when you're pissing people off that you're speaking the truth.
  • Chadholtz
    Good last word :)
blog comments powered by Disqus
ramblings-theology-my thoughts