We had some discussions on this a year ago – some real humdingers. Here are some of the thoughts I had, revised from a previous post.
In my previous church, the Sunday before the Fourth was generally a Red, White and Blue Celebration, which people greatly enjoyed. I tried to make sure, in my sermon, that Americans needed God, but that he did not need us, that neither America nor Americans had any special place in God’s heart. He loved Ethiopians and Koreans and Brazilians – even Canadians! – as much as he loved us.
Tomorrow, I have no plans to preach on anything related to Independence Day.
This has been a point of real conflict, and with my recent emphasis on unity, it might be counter-productive to raise this as a point of discussion here. But it is an interesting discussion.
Again, being the broken record that I am, I do not believe this is an area where we need to divide, even though we have differences. I believe there are certain truths we hold in common, whether we have a Yankee-Doodle Sunday or we ignore the national holiday in our worship.
Here are some points on which I hope we all agree.
1) We agree that our primary citizenship is in heaven and that our first loyalty is to Christ and the heavenly Kingdom.
I am a loyal American. But I am an American second and a Christian first. If we ever put our loyalty to America ahead of or even in competition with our loyalty to Christ, we are idolatrous and sinful.
Paul told the Philippians that “our citizenship is in heaven, and from it we await a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ.” (Philippians 3:20). In 2 Corinthians 5:20, Paul defines our status in this world as “ambassadors for Christ” – a powerful pictures. We live in a foreign country and serve the interests of heaven in this strange land.
No Christian can put his patriotism ahead of his passion for Christ and the Kingdom. On that I believe we all agree.
2) We agree that God desires for us to be good citizens of our earthly home.
Romans 13:1, Titus 3:1 and 1 Peter 2:13 tell us to be subject to our earthly government. Jesus told his disciples to render to Caesar those things that belong to Caesar. We can debate what this means, but we can also agree that some level of patriotism and love for our earthly nation is acceptable for Christians.
3) We agree America has been used greatly by God, but is not special to God.
Historians debate whether America was ever truly a “Christian nation.” I have read books that make a case on both sides and am not enough of an expert on American Church history to argue the topic. I can tell you what I believe. I think that America has been a nation that at one time had a culture that saw itself as Christian and responsible to God. We have tried (sometimes successfully, often in failure) to be a righteous nation, one submitted to the will and ways of God.
Proverbs 14:34 says that righteousness exalts a nation, and I believe that we have seen some exaltation, some blessing because of our (admittedly imperfect) attempts to live in obedience to God’s laws.
On the other hand, I think we all agree that America is not Israel. We have to be very careful to claim the promises of God to Israel as promises to this nation. We hold no special place in God’s heart. He loves Tanzanians and Indonesians and Uzbekistanians (?) as much as he loves Americans.
4) We agree that God’s purpose is not primarily to restore America but to reach the world with the gospel.
Yes, I would love to see America revived as it was in the Great Awakenings or in other great periods of revival in history. Lord, make it happen here and make it happen now. But reviving America is not our chief concern. The Great Commission is. Our duty is to bring Christ to the nations, not just to restore the fortunes of the land we love.
5) We agree that it is right and good to give thanks.
Giving thanks to God is always a good thing to do. I am so thankful for living in America. I’ve never had to wonder where a meal was coming from. I’ve never had to hide from the police or from death squads roaming the streets killing and raping. I have preached 50 Sundays a year for 30 years and never once had to shrink in fear from the authorities.
It is not only right to give thanks for these blessings, it would be wrong not to.
6) We agree that our worship services should glorify God and worship Christ – and no one or nothing else.
Need we say any more? If our worship services Sunday glorify me, I am sinful and blasphemous. If our worship services glorify America above God, we are sinful and blasphemous. If we give our people the idea that America is God’s chosen nation or that we hold a place in God’s heart, if we confuse the interests of America with the interests of the Kingdom of God, we are just as idolatrous.
I think we all agree about that.
Our Agreements
I have a simple point in this post. We have some serious disagreements about how to implement these principles. We will probably continue to disagree and that is okay. But I wish to make the point that in spite of our disagreements, we share a large area of agreement. Honor Christ and Christ alone.
Questions
1) We disagree on how to apply these principles.
Some believe we should never say the pledge or sing the anthem or “God bless America” in church. Others believe that is okay and does not unduly honor America above Christ.
2) Can we not agree that this is an issue of conscience on which pastors and churches agree?
Those who choose to give honor to America in worship services are not trying to foster national idolatry. Those who choose not to have patriotic influences in worship are not anti-American. Both have a deep concern for honoring Christ and for doing his work in the this world. We disagree on an issue that seems to me to be a matter of conscience and personal (or church) preference.
Can we agree on the points of agreement?
Can we agree to disagree on the application of these points of agreement?
So, in this discussion, be excellent to each other. And, on the Fourth, “party on, dudes.”
It would be most interesting to know what Paul said when he prayed for Nero. Might be instructive in helping me pray for Obama.
Saying the same prayers for Obama that you said for Bush, Bush II and Reagan should suffice.
And Clinton in between the two.
Pray that God would bless the President with knowing Him better and walking in obedience to the Word and Will of God.
If the President is close to that, then you’re praying he gets closer, and no Christian would dislike that. If the President is far from it, then your prayers are prayers for his repentance, possibly his salvation, and his walking with God even in small steps.
In this, you do not put yourself as judging how God should work in the President’s life.
And while we may see the opening moves towards restriction of religious liberty in this country, President Obama is a far cry from Nero. I dislike most of his policies, but he’s not lighting Christians on fire or murdering his mother, either.
Doug Hibbard:
A very good and truthful statement and I thank you for it. With one caveat, however. Because of the abortion issue, were someone to state that Obama was worse than Nero, I would not necessarily disagree. My comment was intended more as a whack against partisan religious politics.
Don’t you think that a bit of partisanship is in order when the leadership condones the murder of innocents?
Walt Carpenter:
Not when both parties condone the murder of the innocents. Both parties support abortion, despite the absolute determination of conservative evangelicals to believe otherwise. Conservative evangelicals allowed Reagan to claim to be pro-life despite his consistent pro-abortion record as president and as governor of California. Conservative evangelicals also backed George W. Bush and George H. W. Bush, neither of whom ever even claimed to be pro-life save for the elder Bush’s comically convenient, transparent and superficial flip-flop, the depths of which was exposed when the elder Bush stated that he would support his daughter were she to murder her child. George W. Bush meanwhile never claimed to be pro-life at any time, and stated several times (both personally and by proxy via his wife) that he opposed overturning Roe v. Wade.
Also, abortion is not the only way to take innocent life and do so on a mass scale. Unjust war is also, and both George W. Bush and George H. W. Bush made heavy use of war as politics by other means. So, partisanship is not in order when there is no difference between one party and the other.
The party platform of the Dems openly supports the right to kill the unborn. The GOP opposes this. While they are far from perfect I support those who oppose murder of the innocents in their platform.
Walt:
See my comment above, which is currently #6. The GOP does not oppose abortion. There isn’t a bit of evidence that they do other than their SOMETIMES claiming to, and even that “evidence” requires believing that GOP politicians are any less likely to lie than Democrats are … in other words believing that the GOP is the party of statesmen while the Democrats are the party of politicians.
job: I am not defending the GOP. Are you defending the Democrats? Would you vote for a pro-choice candidate?
Walt:
No, I would not vote for a pro-choice candidate. But that means that I will not vote for either Democrats who are open about their pro-abortion views, or Republicans who claim to be pro-life but are lying about it.
In this vale of tears when you vote for the lesser of two evils you vote to lessen evil. Don’t you think that Jesus understood that by endorsing government He was accepting the politics of choosing between imperfect candidates?
@Walt:
When you are choosing between two pro-abortion candidates, then how are you lessening evil by picking one over the other? If anything, by choosing the one who lies about it over the one who is truthful, you are advancing evil by rewarding the liar and deceiver. Maybe you can make the case that you are opposing evil by choosing the GOP over the Democrats on other issues, such as law enforcement. I cannot vote for a soft-on-crime candidate, and I am glad that in a lot of local and state races I do at times have the option of voting for people who take a hard line against crime who do not disqualify themselves on other issues. But on the issue of the state-sanctioned murder of the innocent, Democrat vs. Republican is six of one versus half a dozen of the other.
Job: You are choosing the lesser of two evils because you are placing a party in power who openly advocates allowing the slaughter of innocents and giving them political power to enforce their agenda. A pro-choice advocate could never achieve national office as a Republican. Ask Rudy Giuliani.
Walt:
“A pro-choice advocate could never achieve national office as a Republican”
But a pro-abortion LIAR can, and has 3 times in the cases of Reagan, George W. Bush and George H. W. Bush. And had Bob Dole and John McCain won, it would have been 5 times. So all choosing the GOP accomplishes is rewarding liars. And yes, you are giving them political power to enforce their agenda, just as Reagan and Bush did in putting 3 pro-abortion Supreme Court justices on the bench, and a succession of GOP presidents and Congresses have done in sending your tax dollars to Planned Parenthood who promotes and performs abortions in America, and to the United Nations which promotes and performs abortions overseas. The idea that one is somehow opposing the pro-abortion agenda by electing the GOP is a myth that conservative evangelicals choose to believe despite all available evidence.
Some individual GOP congressmen, senators and governors are legitimately pro-life but not many, and those who actually are pro-life are never allowed to advance to positions of real power in terms of policy, strategy or even fund-raising. If you are a GOP congressman or senator, the surest path to self-marginalization is submitting an actual pro-life bill that would fundamentally challenge Roe v. Wade. If you are a GOP governor, the best way to make sure that you will never be senator, get a cabinet post or leadership post in the RGA or RNC, or be a viable presidential candidate is to severely restrict access to abortion in your state as has been done in Mississippi, where the legal climate is so hostile to the murder of the unborn that there is only one abortion clinic in the whole state, and even it may soon have to close its doors thanks to another round of regulations targeting it this year.
So unless you are voting for state legislature or governor in Mississippi, it can generally be said that if you think that you are actually opposing abortion by supporting the GOP, you are doing so without evidence.
Sooo Job, what’s your solution? Don’t vote or waste your vote on a minor candidate with no chance to win? Don’t you think Jesus understood the dilemma of imperfect candidates and parties?
President George W. Bush was Pro-Life.
Whether or not a President is Pro-Life makes a big difference in his appointments, executive orders, etc.
It especially makes a difference in his nominations to the Supreme Court.
When we vote, it should make a big difference whether or not the candidate is Pro-Life.
David R. Brumbelow
Two things on this theme really hit me at the annual meeting of the Great Commission Baptists in New Orleans a few weeks ago.
(1) We opened the convention with the Pledge of Allegiance. Every recognized messenger who was not an American citizen was automatically excluded from that portion of the convention program, as a non-citizen (I imagine) would not pledge allegiance to the flag and to the republic for which it stands.
In a year with so much talk about unity in Christ, it was very sad to see us unnecessarily (and without flinching) exclude those who though being in Christ do not share our earthly citizenship–something around which our convention was not founded and does not exist.
This is even more sad in local churches that recite the Pledge as part of their corporate worship this Sunday, as members in good standing (who happen to not share earthly citizenship in a geo-political state) will sit quiet and excluded from a portion of the worship due to the liturgical inclusion of an unnecessary and not prescribed activity.
(2) We heard a testimony from a missionary couple in Brazil, whom it was said received threats and endured suffering for the Gospel. We heard a testimony from a church planter about the loneliness, hardship, and suffering that are endured to reach the lost and establish new churches. For each of these, we politely applauded.
But then the US Soldier was presented as a representative of all “our” men and women who wear the uniform. For him, there was a rip-roaring, rousing standing-ovation with cheers and loud applause.
I appreciate soldiers who serve, suffer and die to provide us with fleeting and temporary freedoms. I really do. They deserve and should receive heartfelt and hardy thanks. But, if that is so, how much more should we show our enthusiastic appreciation for those who serve, suffer and die to provide others with the Gospel, through which they find eternal, lasting freedom?
The disparity in responses left me wondering where the messengers of the convention ultimately ground their identity–on earth or in heaven?
If I was attending a convention or service in a foreign country and their pledge of allegiance was recited I would stand respectfully at attention and take no offense. No one is asking you to participate yet you would deny others this right.
“No one is asking you to participate…”
BINGO! Where in Scripture do we find warrant for excluding persons from a portion our corporate service on the basis of nationality?
As an aside: I’ve had military servicemen tell me how refreshing it was when stationed abroad to attend a local church of believers and have unity in Christ–and state that they would have felt excluded if that country’s pledge was recited or national anthem sung.
We are citizens of our respective countries as well as heaven. I cannot imagine objecting to patriotism in a foreign country and would in no way consider that such was directed at me in an exclusionary sense.
I’d still love to hear your thoughts on the question, Walt.
Here’s a flash for you. I celebrated Easter on a glorious Sunday morning in the Persian Gulf. Alongside Sunday Colors, we proudly flew ‘Don’t tread on me”.
I’ve worshipped all over the world, and I have never, ever felt excluded by a country who honors the blessings God bestowed extended to them.
Here’s what John Adams thought we ought to do on Independence Day: “…It ought to be commemorated as a day of deliverance by solemn acts of devotion to God Almighty. It ought to be solemnized with pomp and parade, with shows, games, sports, guns, bell, bonfires, and illuminations from one end of this continent to the other…”
It is times like this, that I’m stunned to hear yet again, that my service and that of my husband, father and brothers and sisters is of no consequence, not because I need any praise, but because without the intervention of God Almighty, we’d not have this wonderful country. The church was fundamental in its inception.
I suppose the problem with creating division and promoting unity is that no matter what a person does, someone will be offended. I’m offended that Christians who have been blessed beyond measure can’t take one day out of the year to thank God for the providence bestowed upon us. Offended indeed.
Our National Hymn:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nmJYzgNrk2Y
Be thou our ruler, guardian, guide and stay……
How in the world can any Christian living in America feel it’s inappropriate to praise the Lord for our country?
Chief:
(1) Who in this string said that your service “is of no consequence”? Certainly not me; I said quite the opposite.
(2) Who in this string said that “Christians who have been blessed beyond measure can’t take one day out of the year to thank God for the providence bestowed upon us”? Certain not me; I’ve made no comment on that issue at all. Indeed, I celebrate the 4th (that’s not the issue of this post). Furthermore, I don’t take one day to do that; I take 365-6 days a year to do it.
A-Men, Chief Petty Officer Katie.
I say: Praise God and pass the ammunition!!
Hey Dave!,
You stated, “Giving thanks to God is always a good thing to do. I am so thankful for living in America. I’ve never had to wonder where a meal was coming from. I’ve never had to hide from the police or from death squads roaming the streets killing and raping. I have preached 50 Sundays a year for 30 years and never once had to shrink in fear from the authorities.
It is not only right to give thanks for these blessings, it would be wrong not to.”
I thank it would be highly proper for all American Christians to humbly get down on their knees in church on the Fourth of July and thank God who in His holy providence gave victory to American in a multitude of wars known and unknown to the American public all over this globe.
I think all American Christians should get down on their knees in church on the Fourth of July and thank God for those men and women of all conventional branches of the American Armed Forces and all those American Mercs (Dogs of War) who worked in filthy places where rats and snakes won’t crawl to keep despicable wretches from slaughtering innocent men, women, and children in their sleep.
I thank God for American men and women who had/have the grit and steel constitution in their person to make “One Shot, One Kill” a fearful slogan in the minds of the enemies of this nation all over the earth.
I think all American Christians should get down on their knees and thank Holy God for all those hard men who will stand watch in terrible places during the night so Americans and free people everywhere can get up from their comfortable beds on July Fifth and exercise their freedom to not pledge allegiance to the Grand Ole Flag.
Brother Scott. Very well stated. Eric would deny me that privilege at the church he pastors.
It is a frequent refrain that we thank God in our church for those who have sacrificed that we may meet with “The lights on and the doors unlocked” and we follow that in praying for our brothers and sisters in Christ who must do the opposite for fear of government oppression.
The only thing special we’ll be doing in our service tomorrow is an emphasis prayer on behalf of our nation and leaders based on 1 Timothy 2:1-4… which will be immediately followed by the singing of I’d Rather Have Jesus.
we will pray for our soldiers, and for those who serve in our country to help others, especially the firemen and volunteers in Colorado, which is now in crisis . . . we will pray with confidence and with thanksgiving to the Lord
we will also take time to remember . . .
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nptA5uj6ZRY&feature=related
Where in Scripture do you find prohibition of patriotic rites in our conventions or services when we are commanded to be good citizens of our country?
I’d still love to hear your thoughts on the question, Walt.
Eric,
Context is everything. Is it biblical for Christians to be patriotic? I think we all agree that the answer is yes. Where was the convention held? New Orleans, LA USA. I agree with Walt, in a different context I would be offended or feel excluded.
I meant I would not be offended.
John,
Thanks for your thoughts.
Yes, we all agree that being “patriotic” is biblical (depending on what we mean by ‘patriotic’).
No one has yet actually addressed my question though… 🙁
A follow-up on your context question: Would it have been appropriate to make the Pledge to the Louisiana State Flag part of the program? Or, next year, will it be appropriate to make the Pledge to the Texas Flag part of the program?
Why pose hypotheticals that did not happen in LA. and won’t happen in TX?
I would still love to hear your thoughts on the question, Walt.
What question?
Where in Scripture do we find warrant for excluding persons from a portion our corporate service on the basis of nationality?
If God had considered patriotic expression in church to be sinful surely He would have made that known through the prophets or apostles. He did not. Your question therefore begs the issue. What is not condemned is allowable.
You’re begging the question, Walt.
I’m not addressing “patriotic exression” in general. I’m addressing actions done in the service of corporate worship of a local church which necessarily exclude believers from participating.
You’re begging the question, Walt.
I’m not addressing “patriotic expression” in general. I’m addressing actions done in the service of corporate worship of a local church which necessarily exclude believers from participating.
It’s not about you Eric, no matter how vocal you get. It is about people having the freedom to express their love of country in the manner they desire. Frankly, I see your taking offense at this to be uncharitable.
Eric: You started out objecting to patriotic actions taken at the SBC meeting in a New Orleans civic arena.
Walt:
You’ve publicly accused me of sin.
Furthermore, you’ve mischaracterized my position.
Both of these are unhelpful when trying to have a Christian, logical, productive discussion.
When you can do the following, I’ll rejoin the conversation:
(a) Clearly state, from what I’ve written here, what exactly my position is, in such a way that I’d respond, “Yes, that’s what I believe.”
(b) Show from what I’ve written where I’ve been “uncharitable.”
I find that in peacemaking, until we can state the other’s view in such a way that they know they’re understood, we’ll make no progress. I don’t feel that you want to understand me, nor that you do.
Likewise, the Scripture tells us that charity “hopes all things, believes all things. Be charitable means giving others the benefit of the doubt, unless and until you have certain reason to do otherwise.
If you can’t do (a) and (b), then it is your charge, sir, that is guilty of being “uncharitable.”
This is my first significant attempt to participate in SBCVoices, not being overly familiar with the blog at all — and probably my last. I’m thankful that my friend, Dave, is so devoted to conversations that pursue true unity. I can see from this experience why it is such a concern.
Eric:
I have trouble understanding how you are pursuing unity when you object to actions taken by others that are not intended to offend or exclude you. I believe that this lacks charity. I don’t want to offend you but that is how I see it.
Walt:
I take it you are unwilling to show that you (a) actually understand what I am saying and (b) show how such is uncharitable.
If you’d like to actually have a conversation. Please follow the link to my blog and contact me at my church.
Asked and answered.
Eric:
You received an answer. You just didn’t like it.
@Walt:
It is not so cut-and-dried as you claim. There are some Bible texts that can be interpreted as prohibiting patriotic and other political activity, and the original Anabaptists used them for that purpose, as did some of their descendant groups like the Mennonites and Amish.
Also, it is very easy for a Christian to be patriotic in a “Christian nation” like America. But what about being patriotic in a communist or pagan nation? As an added bonus, patriotic in a communist or pagan nation that persecutes Christians? What would be your attitude towards the patriotic Iranian Christian, for example?
And that takes us back to the scripture text issue. The Jews of old (consider Shadrach, Meshach, Abednego, Daniel, Moses) found patriotism very difficult in pagan nations like Babylon and Egypt. Jeremiah was accused of being unpatriotic when he told the people to abandon their apostate king and his false prophets and submit to Babylon. And though canonical scripture isn’t as explicit on this point, the early Jewish Christians were frequently accused of being insufficiently loyal to the Jewish nation (especially when they refused to follow the false messiahs in their insurrections against Rome) and Gentile Christians were accused of subverting Rome by refusing to show their patriotism by worshiping the emperor or take part in state and civil observances with the other Roman citizens. (Here’s an irony: the “evidence” that Christians of the first and second century were unpatriotic was very similar to that used against communists in this country not so long ago. Of course, where the charges against the Christians were false where the same against communists were generally true, it is still something to think about.)
So while patriotism in church service might be lawful, 1 Corinthians 10:23 states that all things that are lawful are not necessarily expedient.
Job,
With all due respect I have to disagree with you about Daniel. While he would not do anything that would violate the laws of God he was still a very loyal citizen to Babylon. “Oh king, live forever” comes to mind. And just because Jews and Christians have been accused of being unpatriotic doesn’t make it so.
Where in Scripture does it say that patriotic rites are not expedient?
If I was in Iran and my friend wished to express his patriotism to his country, I would not object and would act respectfully while he is doing so. I would recognize that he is not slighting or excluding me by his action.
Eric,
Thank you for your question. Since the Louisiana convention would basically be serving as the host, in my opinion, the answer is yes it would be appropriate for someone from the Louisiana delegation to lead in such a pledge.
Are you for the pledge to the American flag being recited in our public schools even though there are foreign exchange students present?
John,
As to your question below: The public school is a *public* school–owned and operated by the state.
The local church is not (at least, not according to traditional baptist polity).
Eric,
But your concern was over being exclusionary. The scenario I presented would be exclusionary as well.
In the *church,* John, was my concern. Bringing in public schools is like comparing apples and moon rocks.
My concern is excluding a Christian from participating in a portion of our corporate worship on the basis of their nationality.
Eric,
I just can’t imagine any context where obeying the biblical mandate to be patriotic citizens would be unbiblical. The songs we sing will acknowledge that God is the Creator and the Judge of of our nation. What biblical principle would you cite that would teach us that this practise is wrong?
“the biblical mandate to be patriotic citizens”
There is a biblical mandate to obey our leaders, there is a biblical mandate to love our neighbors, there is no biblical mandate to be patriotic citizens. There is, in general, nothing wrong with being patriotic, but nor is it commanded.
Chris,
In 1 Peter 2:17 we are commanded to “honor the king”. I take that to mean that we are to be patriotic. We are not told to honor another nation’s king but ours’.
John,
Showing honor to the leaders of the country is not the same as a command to celebrate the nation.
Chris,
You and I obviously disagree as to our use of the word patriotism. Obeying our government, honoring our leaders, praying for them, and recognizing that our nation owes its existence to God to me is patriotism. I think that it’s interesting that the soldiers who were saved in the biblical accounts were never told to leave the army or to stop being loyal to their respective governments.
To me patriotism is being loyal to and thankful for the nation that God chose to place me in.
John,
In a discussion on a post about patriotic observance in church, I assume patriotism in this sense to mean something like acts in a worship service that celebrate our nation – displays of pride for our nation, gratitude to our military, etc. Such things are reasonable and good for all people, Christians included, but I don’t think they belong in a church service.
Chris,
I assume it means a service where we express thankfulness to God for our nation and its liberties. And as an act of worship we do as God commanded and pray for our nation, honor its leaders, and show loyalty to it.
John and Chris,
Thanks for modeling how to arrive at an understanding of each others terminology.
Defining “patriotism” is important, isn’t it!
Thanks Eric,
That’s very kind of you to say. I’m trying to learn the valuable lesson that just because a man disagrees with me that doesn’t make him my enemy.
Amen to that, John!
While we will be singing a couple of patriotic songs and the flag will be displayed, the rest of the service will focus on regular worship. The message will be a continuation of my series in Hebrews 11 with a message entitled “Faith Under Fire”.
I always remind our people of the priority of kingdom citizenship. I am to “render to Caesar that which is Caesar’s, and render to God that which is God’s.” I owe my country my legal, moral, and ethical obedience. I owe to God my salvation, life, and soul. The latter guides the former. Politics never defines my Christian life, my Christian life must define my politics.
AND THERE IS ANOTHER COUNTRY I’VE HEARD OF LONG AGO . . . .
In England, hymns often are able to combine love of country and faith seamlessly and rather beautifully:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ayvoKQrUClk&feature=related
” I vow to thee, my country, all earthly things above,
Entire and whole and perfect, the service of my love;
The love that asks no question, the love that stands the test,
That lays upon the altar the dearest and the best;
The love that never falters, the love that pays the price,
The love that makes undaunted the final sacrifice.
I heard my country calling, away across the sea,
Across the waste of waters she calls and calls to me.
Her sword is girded at her side, her helmet on her head,
And round her feet are lying the dying and the dead.
I hear the noise of battle, the thunder of her guns,
I haste to thee my mother, a son among thy sons.
And there’s another country, I’ve heard of long ago,
Most dear to them that love her, most great to them that know;
We may not count her armies, we may not see her King;
Her fortress is a faithful heart, her pride is suffering;
And soul by soul and silently her shining bounds increase,
And her ways are ways of gentleness, and all her paths are peace. “
I too was at the convention in New Orleans. It was the Annual Business Meeting of the Convention. We had not gathered to worship. The pledge was fine, there.
I also disagree with patriotic worship services. I don’t mind a patriotic service in the building, but not when we gather to worship God on Sunday morning. My position is that our unity is to be in Christ, and I just don’t want to participate in a service which purports to worship Him, but also pledges allegiance to someone or something else. Occasionally we have people who are not USA citizens in the services, and uniting around nationality introduces separation into a setting where there ought to be none.
I don’t kick up a big fuss about it, though. I just don’t attend. I’ll check the program when I get to church tomorrow morning and, if we’re having that sort of service there, I’ll just go to Sunday School both hours.
Hey if I seem curmudgeonly about that, check my blog. I won’t even attend a service where they’re selling stuff in the lobby.
I do not like patriotic observances as part of the worship service. When we gather to worship God, the focus should be on him. Rejoicing in how God has blessed this nation is one thing, though any national focus makes me twitchy, but rejoicing in this nation is something else altogether.
Tomorrow, I will most likely say a few brief words and in my prayer will include thanks to God for a nation of freedom, but that will be it. Everything else will be done as usual. In about a week, on a Tuesday evening, we will be having a patriotic celebration at the church, but it is not connected to a worship service. I don’t care for any activities in church which shift our eyes off of God, and I think most patriotic celebrations do that.
Is it a matter of conscience? Yes, probably – though the most I could allow is that patriotic elements in worship services are unwise and prone to do more harm than good. Indeed, I’m not even sure of what good they could accomplish.
@John:
Daniel and other persecuted Christians and Jews may meet your standards of patriotism, but they did not meet the standards that were expected of them by their contemporary society. Like I mentioned earlier, America makes patriotism “easy.” Other societies do not. It is easy for us to put the American flag in our pulpits because it is a secular symbol. It is not nearly so easy in Muslim countries where the crescent moon and star, which symbolizes both their false religion and false deity, is on their state flag, and people are generally expected to have the state flag displayed during public observances. It is easy to say our pledge of allegiance because it contains only a general reference to any deity that the person reciting it wishes to ascribe it to … the god in “under god” can be the Christian God, or the Jewish god (which is not a Trinity and is therefore false), the Muslim god, the freemason god, the Mormon god, etc. It is quite different to say it in an officially atheist communist state, or in a Muslim state where the allegiance is to allah. In that context, what Christians are expected to do in order to be patriotic is no different from what Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego were required to do. Consider, for instance, that bowing to and worshiping Nebuchadnezzar’s statue was not a claim that that the emperor was in any sense divine, but it was more of a “civil” observance in the context of a society where the concept of secularism did not exist. The same was true regarding Daniel’s refusal to pray to his king … the Medo-Persian monarch was not regarded to be deity. The Roman emperor? It was debatable at best. Some believed the emperors to be divine in at least some sense, and some emperors did claim as such, but many did not, and in general one would have experienced no penalty for asserting that the emperor was just a man.
So burning incense before the Roman emperor, bowing down before Nebuchadnezzar’s statue and praying to Daniel’s monarch were not as far removed from pledging allegiance to the state (including its leaders and symbols), singing patriotic songs etc. and other contemporary expressions of patriotism as we wish to believe. The primary – though not sole – difference is that we have the benefit of such ideas as secularism and separation between church and state that did not exist back then. That means that a great part of the difference hinges on the legitimacy of those ideas. Yes, it is relevant that secularism and church-state separatism are A) relatively new ideas, B) nowhere near universal, especially outside of modern western societies and C) were originated primarily by non-Christians to suit their purposes rather than by Christians for God-honoring purposes. To put it another way, secularism wasn’t advanced by Christians living in pagan lands as a way to help said Christians avoid committing idolatry. It was advanced by atheists living in Christian lands as a way for them to evade Christian observances. The same is true of separation of church and state, which is an Enlightenment idea. So if one accepts the premise that the merit of an idea is a function of the intent of the people who created and advanced it, then a lot of what makes saying the pledge of allegiance today different from bowing to Nebuchadnezzar’s statue back then evaporates.
Ultimately, God judges the heart and not by external standards and that should be remembered. However, God also tells us to examine our own hearts oft, and that should be remembered also.
Job: Are you proposing a theocracy? Jesus endorsed secular government knowing full well its many imperfections. And a true theocracy is not possible unless God chooses to directly commune with mankind or through true prophets.
Job,
Thank you so much for your thoughtful response. When I pledge allegiance to the US flag, or sing a patriotic hymn I do so as an act of worship to God. I recognize that God is the Creator of the nations and He placed us according to His divine providence. So when I sing God Bless America, or My Country Tis of Thee, I’m simply applying the principle of Jeremiah 29:7.
A couple years ago, I had a very emotional moment one day at a kindergarten graduation ceremony. I have been living in Mexico for several years, and first visited in 1983. Most people who know me have stated I have adapted very well to life here, except my Spanish will never be perfect. Even my wife, born and raised here, has admitted I am “more Mexican than she is.”
Most of my friends and loved ones in the world live in my Third World village. We have driven all over the US, at least the Eastern half, over 250,000 miles since we retired in 1997. Yet, now I don’t want to go anywhere that keeps me from sleeping in my bed at night. This for those who remind me I am 70 years old, is I think a part of being old. I have seen many people who when they are older no longer want to go anywhere if they can avoid it.
I feel this is where I want to live until I die, if it is possible, and then I want to be buried with my wife’s ancestors.
I attended a little friend’s kindergarten graduation, as I have done before. And, a patriotic program is part of it. In fact, disrespect for the flag or national hymn here gets you serious jail time. I usually just stood at respectful attention with my arms by my side.
This time it came over me. For all practical purposes, this has become my home, thus my nation. After a few seconds of thought, I saluted the flag and I meant it.
If you had told me in the 60’s, that I would ever salute the flag of another nation, I would have thought you were nuts.
I assure you it was a very emotional moment.
I also assure you that though I now view this as my home, my nation, you will never see me commit any act of treason or any act which will directly harm the US. As a US citizen from birth I owe it that much no matter why I am here.
Bruce McGovern,
May God give His rich blessings to you, my brother. It is my opinion that you are a man who understands.
Praise the Lord for Pastor’s like … John Peter Muhlenberg!
In 1775, after preaching a message on Ecclesiastes 3:1, “For everything there is a season, and a time for every matter under heaven,” John Peter Muhlenberg closed his message by saying:
“In the language of the Holy Writ, there is a time for all things. There is a time to preach and a time to fight.”
He then threw off his robes to reveal the uniform of a soldier in the Revolutionary Army. That day, 300 men joined with him, as he marched off to join General Washington’s troops, becoming Colonel of the 8th Virginia Regiment. He served until the end of the war being promoted to the rank of Major-general.
He almost froze to death at Valley Forge … so we today can stand in our air-conditioned churches preaching the Gospel of Jesus Christ!
May his kind and kindred spirit … never be forgotten in America. Who will tell these stories of faith, courage, and sacrifice? Who will teach succeeding generations of young Americans the truths of our past so they will have the courage to sustain our freedom for the future?
A-Men!! A-Men, Ron Hale.
“He almost froze to death at Valley Forge … so we today can stand in our air-conditioned churches preaching the Gospel of Jesus Christ!”
Just out of curiosity, in light of a claim of this sort – did religious freedom have anything to do with the Revolutionary War? While it became a factor later, I don’t think it was a concern in the war, nor were people worried about Britain suppressing Christianity.
“Who will tell these stories of faith, courage, and sacrifice?”
Hopefully not the preacher during a time of worship to God.
Well Chris, to answer your questions, yes Religious freedoms WERE a major issue preceding and during the Revolutionary War. I assume that you knew that the British monarch is also the head of the Church of England (aka Anglican) correct? What I will assume you dont know is that several states during the 18th century, collected a “parish” tax on all citizens on behalf of a particular denomination. If you were a follower of a different denomination, you still had to pay. If you never attended church, you still had to pay. Some states, it was actually illegal to follow certain denominations. The reason why Rhode Island exists today is because Roger Williams, a baptist minister who formed the first baptist church in America, was kicked out of Massachusetts because he was baptist! More often than not, it was those loyal to the crown, that were the most intolerant of any other religious denomination from having any rights that were equal to what the Anglicans received.
So yes the issue of Religious freedom played a STRONG role in the American Revolution.
Smuschany,
Those were existing factors, but to what degree did they motivate military action? How many people went to war with this issue on their minds? Considering many of those who fought were Anglican, I don’t imagine this was a great concern to them.
Every individual who decided to fight did so for different reasons. The motivations that led a Georgia farmer to fight against the Crown were vastly different than the reasons a Boston merchant chose to fight. Indeed, the dirty little secret is only about 1/3rd of the colonial population chose to fight. WIth another estimated 1/3 wanting to stay with the Crown, and the rest just not wanting to get involved at all. Simply put, freedom, was the unifying motive for the revolution of those who chose to resist the crown. Freedom from oppressive taxes, freedom from oppressive government laws, freedom to worship as they saw fit without government interference. Yes it would be impossible to tell how much religion played a role in the desire to rebel against the crown because everyone had different motives and reasons for either resisting, or staying loyal. But to casually cast off religion as a major factor as you are Chris is not supported by historical facts that are in evidence for all to see.
Smuschany,
I want to thank you for this reasoned comment. It was well stated and does reflect the environment of the time when American freedom was won. It was the few then. It always has been that way. It will always be that way. The few see. The few do. The few gain the victory. That is the way of it.
On a hill long ago, there was only the One. There was just One. Yet, the One defeated sin, death, the grave, and hell. Those who look to the One, the Son of God, in repentance and faith have victory because He has victory.
Therefore, let us all praise and worship the One and let us thank Him for the few.
Smuschany,
Thank you for your historical perspective.
Well Dave, you’ve really done it this time. You’ve given us something to think about SBC Voices. Here’s what i think: as Christians we owe allegience to government, but our ultimate citizenship, we know, is in heaven. It’s the kingdom of God. When I think about the church and the kingdom, I think of something that transcends all barriers; we’re universal. So as to the question, should we exhibit national patriotism during worship? I don’t think so. We should be obedient to government and more so than anyone else, assuming that doesn’t conflict with our allegience to God. But I really don’t think we were ever meant to display or engage in any kind of worldly patriotism when we “gather together for the breaking of bread, etc.” I never got that impression from the Bible. Do churches in the SBC incorporate patriotism into the Suday service? Of course. Should they? I rather think not.
I’m going to take a chance here and say something that may be misunderstood: the worship of so many SBC churches and so many other denominatioanl churches have used patriotism in worship for so long that we don’t realize how absurd it would have seemed to people in the first century. I’m not saying it’s wrong. I guess it’s just kind of out of place in my view–equivalent to playing The Yellow Brick Road or advertising McDonald’s–we wouldn’t do such nthings when we engage in the work of the apostles and carry on the business of the church. Slo why would we play God Save the Queen or pledge to a flag?
Oops…the song I referred to is Goodbye Yellow Brick Road. It was a good one, too.
Dave,
A good parallel of Earthly wars and Kingdom wars for independence may be appropriate. We celebrate our liberty and freedom after our earthly war and we celebrate our rest and peace in Christ after our kingdom war. Showing the difference between the two would help Christians in their perspective of the flesh vs spirit. We are suppose to live in both and know how to do it. Just a thought.
Job,
I am not sure what you anger at the GOP has to do with the fourth of July celebration in the USA.
You might pause for a moment and see that under our last two democratic presidents, abortion became more supported by the appratus of government at all levels. In the case of Barack Obama, the increase of support for abortion is astounding and heartbreaking. I certainly agree that none of the last three republican presidents were anti abortion crusaders but the notion that there is no difference between the parties shows a breathtaking cynical ignorance of the past twenty years and of the next twenty.
Republican administrations have unquestionably given lip service to the Christian agendas of anti-abortion and anti-gay marriage. However, I see very little they have actually done to advance either. Even when we had a Republican President for 8 years and a Republican majority in both houses of Congress of 6 of those 8 years, no bills came forth restricting either. There was no marriage amendment. Yes, so-called “conservative” Supreme Count justices were appointed, but one of those just voted with the liberals to give them a majority on the President’s health care act, which proves (I think) how little our labels and expectations mean in the real worlds of politics and constitutional law. Furthermore conservative justices and judges tend to retire under Republican administrations and liberal ones under Democratic ones so that the balance of power will be preserved. Bottom line: I see “conservative” politicians manipulating Christian voters by giving lip service to what we want, and actually doing very little. That may well be what was behind President Obama’s recent endorsement of gay marriage: lip service to his liberal base. It will be interesting to see if he actually does anything about it; if he does, we will have the curious situation of a liberal politician keeping his word while conservative ones have not. That is why I do not trust in political action to advance Christian causes or morals. Or maybe I have just become cynical, but that is where I am at nonetheless.
John Fariss
John,
I’m not trying to be argumentative but the proposition that Republicans do nothing about these issues is false. I would have to disagree with you about not passing any bills advancing the pro life agenda under Bush and the Republican Congress. They passed the partial birth abortion ban, legislation that Bill Clinton vetoed twice. . It was because of Republican pressure that Bill Clinton signed D.O.M.A. which allowed states amend their constitutions to define marriage as between a man and a woman, which by the way, the majority of states have done.
John,
You are right that D.O.M.A. was an initative of the Republican Party, and was passed while the Republicans had control of both houses. However, it passed Congress with bipartisian support–both Republicans and Democrats–and was signed into law, as you pointed out, by a Democratic President, normally considered liberal. However, my comment was more specificially aimed at inaction during the 8 years that George W. Bush was President and especially the 6 of those 8 that the Republicans still controlled both houses, during which Constitutional challenges to D.O.M.A. were becomming more and more common and likely to succeed.
You are also right that partial birth abortion bills were passed by Republicans, and I entirely agree that is a heinious practice. However, they account for only a fraction of abortions, and I suspect they were no more than window dressing, knowing as they did that President Clinton would veto them–and there was no attempt to overide of the veto as I recall, and certainly no effective one. And when, under Bush II, did they attempt even that?
I am not a lawyer nor a Constitutional expert, but I think you are wrong when you said that D.O.M.A. “allowed states amend their constitutions to define marriage as between a man and a woman.” As I recall from high school Civics, states can ammend their constitutions however they like, with or without Federal support. Of course, to do so in accordance with Federal law would seem to make it less likely to be ruled unconstitutional at the Federal level. Even so though, it is not a matter of Federal law “allowing” it. But maybe this is just semantics.
I assure you: if the Republicans would push something that was big and bold regarding marriage and abortion, I would be 100% behind it. However, for all the talk and bluster, I have not seen that happen, nor do I expect it to happen. Besides my generally low opinion of politicians, the current emphasis in the Republican Party–thanks to the Tea Party influence–is for a smaller, weaker Federal presence with fewer Federal guidelines and regulations, and big Federal initatives are at odds with that. Consequently, I expect the Republican Party of the forseeable future (which admittedly is not very far) to fulfill the definition of “conservative,” which is to conserve the status quo or roll it back to an earlier time but only in terms of Fecedal influence.
John
John,
Thanks for your response. DOMA basically left the matter of marriage to the states. Perhaps my use of the word allowed was not the best.
I think all national holidays could be mentioned in their respective Sunday services. We can thank God for our Presidents, Veterans, those who died in war, labor who built our country, etc. God has indeed worked in and through all these people.
Henry David Thoreau was once taken to task, I do not remember off-hand if he was thrown in jail. But, he had problems because he had failed to pay to his father’s church. A church he had never shown any interest in. That was well into the 19th Century.
As far as the GOP vs. Democrats, I think sometimes people confuse the professional liars (i.e. – elected politicians) and the membership. I cannot disagree with those who point out the elected GOP folks are pretty bad, which is why we have the word, RINO (Republican In Name Only). But, I believe most anti-abortion people tend to be registered Republicans.
The Republican voters are trying to re-take control of their party. The TEA party is one such movement, and note the heat it takes from everyone. I believe in the end, the Rep. voters will triumph.
The man my family jokingly called Cousin George was considered a wild-eyed liberal when he ran for president. Today, he would be an extremist conservative.
I am confused by this blog. I post, not on REPLY to a posting, but on the box below assuming my posting will be entered at the bottom. Instead it is inserted way up the page.
Bruce, there is some kind of issue with the threading that I can’t figure out. I’m about to do away with it completely, I think.
Okay, thanks, makes sense. Let me point out since I have considerable experience in my own way, that I know blogs which get as many as 900 comments. What they do is insert the heading so people can know where to find what they are responding to.
An example would be:
@Dave Miller July 1, 2012 at 10:56 am
Then, anyone can scroll right to that time and date.
Not to patronize those who already know this, just saying.
But Bruce that requires work and effort. Do you really expect SBC folk do take the time and do that? That takes valuable seconds out of their day that could be spent on something more important, like reading their Scofield Bible or eating fried chicken and green bean casserole.
Hee, hee. Well said, I guess.
In reading through the comments, I do hope that people understand the DIFFERENCE between ‘patriotism’ and ‘party loyalty’ . . .
our soldiers are serving the homeland, and the flag that will cover their coffins, if they do not survive, is the flag of the homeland
I hope, as Americans, we can pull together to honor their service and care properly for those who have been severely injured in battle.
We owe them that. They are the best of who we are as a people.