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

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.

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.]

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)

How things have changed

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 my 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.