Recently, the abstract discussion of whether I would say the Pledge of Allegiance to the United States came into reality in a different way than I had ever thought of when I sent my children to a VBS and my eldest son to church camp. At the VBS, Lindsay informed me that they learned the Pledge of Allegiance and did it at the final show, which I could not attend due to work. At church camp, they always start the day off with the Pledge of Allegiance, the Pledge to the Bible, and the Pledge to the Christian flag. I regret not training him beforehand to not say the Pledge of Allegiance, but can I really expect my six and four years olds to not participate in the Pledge when the people in charge tell them to?
I don't regret it because of what America is; America is a pretty good nation. I regret it because of my son pledging allegiance to any entity other than God. His loyalty to this nation should only go as far as they do not interfere with his being obedient to Christ and loving others. If his loyalty to the kingdom of God ever collides with a temporal kingdom on earth, I hope that I have trained him to always keep his loyalty to God. One cannot have two allegiances.
So I feel guilty. I allowed my child to say what I hope is a lie. I do not want him to pledge allegiance to any temporal entity. I pray that his only allegiance will be to God, and I pray for wisdom on how to handle such situations in the future.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
18 comments:
I also do not say the pledge.
Nor do I sing the national anthem or put my hand over my heart during its performance.
I have a problem with the the American and Christian flags being in the church.
All sorts of people had problems with Obama for not pledging; I rooted him on.
Am I anti-American? No, not exactly. But like you I believe Christians have only 1 allegiance - to the kingdom of God. It is not a matter of dual allegiance or even the kingdom taking precedence. When Jesus said, "Love God and serve God only" I take him at his word.
So what would you do with your child in this situation?
I'm debating (I actually will since one of the board members is in my small group) of asking Lake James to stop the Pledge of Allegiance. Is that unwise?
I think you guys are taking the idea of the pledge way to far. I don't think those who came up with it would even claim the pledge is supposed to supercede our allegiance to God. I make all kinds of pledges to groups... I even pledge to Blockbuster that I'll return their DVD's, do I need to notify them that that's only if returning it doesn't violate any of God's laws?
I don't think there there is anything in our pledge of allegiance that would require me to disobey God. We even have ways for people to be concientious objectors!
Now I'm with you in putting the US flag in our buildings, that's a mixing of my faith with my state, but you guys, in my opinon, are putting up some unnecessary stumbling blocks.
Barry,
I'm not sure that you're wrong, but some thoughts...
Vowing to bring my videos back is not on par with pledging my devotion and loyalty to a country.
If it's wrong to pledge to the flag in our buildings, what makes it okay outside the buildings? We are still the Church wherever we are.
In a culture where patriotism is almost a cult, taking an intentional step away is probably a good idea.
"you guys, in my opinon, are putting up some unnecessary stumbling blocks."
I would argue that those who link patriotism with the church are putting up an unnecessary stumbling block. The gospel is for patriots and anarchists and everyone in between. When we link it to one specific group, we do the gospel a disservice. Having the flag in the church or having my child state the Pledge of Allegiance links the gospel to a specific temporal group, not that the group is inherently evil. Our nation is generally good, but Christians have an allegiance only to Christ and his eternal kingdom.
And if Blockbuster made me pledge allegiance to them, rather than state that I am going to pay late fees, then I would also encourage Christians to not go to Blockbuster.
"...Christians have an allegiance only to Christ and his eternal kingdom."
Render to Ceaser what is Ceaser's and God what is God's. We do have allegiance and responsiblities to other groups they just can't be placed above our commitments to God.
That's all I'm saying. Pledging to the US and to God is not mutally exclusive unless my country is asking me to pledge something directly contradictory to my commitments to God. I don't think the US pledge does this in any way.
When it comes to taxation, we are to render to Caesar what is Caesar's. This does not pertain to obeying the laws of the land when they go against Scripture. The Caesar passage is really irrelevant to whether we should make a statement of allegiance to our temporal state.
Just so we are on the same page in using vocabulary. Allegiance means "the loyalty of a citizen to his or her government or of a subject to his or her sovereign." This leads me to ask what loyalty is. Loyalty is "the state or quality of being loyal; faithfulness to commitments or obligations - faithful adherence to a sovereign, government, leader, cause, etc." I see no wiggle room. If I am loyal to my nation, then that means that I cannot disagree with it and break its laws when I need to. I can only have one unconditional allegiance.
I agree that we have conditional allegiances to other groups, but the pledge of allegiance does not place any conditions within the statement. The key is that all of our other allegiances need to be conditional. The Pledge does not state, "I pledge allegiance to the United States as long as it remains one nation under God as discerned by me and other believers." It is an outright pledge of loyalty in what appears to be all circumstances to a temporal authority.
A pledge to the US does not become contradictory to God until the US wants you to do something that is contradictory to God (like not feed an illegal immigrant). Often, our loyalty and allegiance to our nation is not an issue of concern, but it does become one at times. If we are not willing to uphold the pledge in all circumstances, then we should not make it. Let our "yes" be "yes," and our "no" be "no." The pledge is a "yes" that we cannot honor all of the time in good conscience. A pledge of allegiance, if we feel that it is necessary to ever give one besides to God, should never be given to a temporal kingdom or group unless it is connected with explicit conditions.
We see that the early church (and the church throughout history) went to jail and were executed because of the Gospel being in conflict with the State. The State is not always in line with the Gospel. When they conflict, the choice for the Christian should always be the Gospel. You don't disagree with that, do you?
My allegiance is to the kingdom of God, not to any temporal kingdom no matter how worthy that temporal kingdom might be because all temporal kingdoms are fallible and will eventually conflict with the Gospel.
I want to also make the comment that no other group has ever asked me to make a pledge of allegiance to them. Nor can I think of any organization that would ask me to make one in order to join them or identify with them.
Hello everyone. And a special hot and fuzzy greeting to Mr. Barry. How are ya?
I don't think the debate should be going in terms of either/or. Either you pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and for the Republic (Republic?) for which it stands. Or you pledge allegiance to Jesus Christ, the Rock of your salvation, the Son of God, born of a woman, born under the law to redeem those under the law.
One can have a hierarchy of allegiances. One's commitment to one's spouse does not eliminate one's commitment to one's church, one's job, one's country. The question arises when these commitments overlap and fight for attention. For example, a long-planned family vacation takes a backseat and is placed by another long week at the office.
Having said that, I wonder whether it's the church's job to raise level of patriotism among people. I wonder if it's the job of Christians who are not of this world to raise some people's children in patriotism to their country where they are -- to paraphrase a hymn -- just passing through. The church's and – by derivative – the church camp's job is to raise children in the love of Christ and make sure that that love will spill into other aspects of their life, including their civic duty. But ultimately how patriotic children are - that is the job for a parent, not the church. A parent can get involved in civic life of his or her community and show his or her child what it means to love the country, the state, the county or the city. Instead of flaming up hot-dogs and sausages on Memorial Day, a patriotic parent can take a trip to war monuments of those who gave their lives for their country. A parent can make a festive celebration out of the Election Day by taking their child with them to the polls and showing how important it is to vote, or rather to fulfill their civic duty. To me, that screams a much better pledge of allegiance to the country than the Pledge of Allegiance in the context of a church camp.
Quick update. It is not camp policy for the Pledge of Allegiance. It was a dean decision.
Quick question, is one's pledge of allegiance to one's spouse explicitly conditional? I mean, do you say explicitly, I'll love you as long as my love to you does not stand in the way of my loving God? I suspect not. So, how fair is it to expect the Pledge of Allegiance to be explicitly conditional?
How can we as the human race ever survive a Barry/Aleks tag-team?
Aleks makes a lot of sense here.
I did pledge a love until death to Lindsay. I said that I would love and cherish her through every situation. But that love does not run parallel to allegiance to the state. I see no reason to state that I will be loyal to my nation no matter what she does because I might not. There are many nations around the world that I would not remain loyal to if I were a citizen of them. I will break the laws of any land when they disagree with the Gospel.
If allegiance can be ranked, then it does not have to be either/or like Aleks proposed. It is nice to make everything both/and discussions, but I do not think allegiance can be one of those. Allegiance is an either/or issue. Either you have allegiance to something that is not negotiable or you have something other than allegiance. I guess it all depends on what one means by allegiance. If allegiance is something lighthearted, then it would be fine to have my child state the pledge. If is a serious commitment to obey the state and become the citizen the state wants, then I see no reason for a Christian to do it.
I agree wholeheartedly with Aleks in that civic responsibility should be taught outside of the church rather than inside it. An individual can get involved or not involved in the government as much as they like. One's involvement in the public arena should not be a test of fellowship.
However, by having the Pledge stated by the children at a church function, we are expecting a certain level of patriotism from every child at the gathering. The minimal level of patriotism that I expect out of a Christian is an attitude of submitting to the government for punishment when following the Gospel causes us to break their laws. And I would not force a child to agree to that position in order to teach them about Jesus. I did not send my child to VBS or to church camp to have the church teach him to be a "good American." I sent him to learn about Jesus and his kingdom. It is my responsibility to teach him what I believe a "good American" is.
I agree with Regan in part. I disagree with Regan in some other part.
I agree that Regan didn't send his children to be raise as patriots to VBS. And I agree that the allegiance should not be forced on them and parents should be given an option to exempt their child from reciting the pledge. Teachers for their job ought to make children feel like they've not done anything bad.
I disagree with Regan on his allegiance to his wife. I think if your allegiance to your spouse stands in the way of your allegiance to your God, you are to chose your allegiance to God. However, it doesn't mean that allegiance to God and allegiance to spouse are mutually exclusive. In fact, your allegiance to your spouse, your job, your country can and should exist within your allegiance to God. Any of those activities stem from your allegiance to or your love for God. We're told to respect those who are in authority and obey governments which are anointed by God (By the way, that means all governments, including brutal and totalitarian). When those allegiances force you out of your allegiance to God, the latter takes precedence.
Though i agree with Aleks to some extent, I guess the question that must be answered is, "Does allegiance to the Kingdom of God include allegiance to one's nation of origin?" Obviously loving people (especially spouses) is included in one's allegiance to the kingdom. Therefore, it seems reasonable and acceptable to allow such pledges of allegiance (i.e. wedding vows). But what about country? I believe therein lies the crux of the problem. Barry says "yes" citing the Caesar passage. I (and perhaps Regan) would say "no."
I just want to say, even if I don't quite understand what Aleks is saying, I disagree wholeheartedly simply for the sake of balance in the universe.
Nice hearing from you Aleks.
"Does allegiance to the Kingdom of God include allegiance to one's nation of origin?" Or whether the allegiance to the Kingdom excludes it. I think it's a matter of personal opinion. Many Christians bravely take arms to defend their countries in conflicts far far away without having any guilt problems with it. on the other hand, many Christians object to any use of violence as a solution to the problem and wouldn't take arms to defend their country. Take, for example, the case of Matthis Chiroux who refused to be deployed to Iraq.
To me, both views equally valid, depending on individuals. "Let your conscience be your guide," I say.
We know cases when the government forces believers to adhere to its policies rather than what they believe. It's when the government requires citizens to do something contrary to the Scripture. In fact, some Supreme Court cases deal with this issue - whether the government infringes on the right of a person to free express his religious beliefs. What jumps to mind is a group of Jehovah's Witnesses suing Delaware, I believe, for putting words "To Live Free or Die" on its license plates. According to JW, one can only die for God, not for the state.
Post a Comment