The Pledge during Worship

[Guest]

Did you just stand or did you say the pledge as well?

Actually, since I wasn't expecting him to do the pledge, it took me a second to stand (I had to re-arrange a book or two). By the time I stood he had already said "i pledge allegiance to the flag". I prolly started saying the pledge about midway through

In any case, I'm going to make sure the secretary takes it out this week!

[Guest]

Hi Emmet,

A pleasure hearing from you again. I would have figured by now you would have gotten tired of my endless replies to your messages. I guess I haven’t worn you out just yet.

First - it is not tenable that both coincide with the same message. Christianity calls for faith and trust in Christ. America does not.

American does call for a faith and trust in our representatives to represent those who put him/her into power.

Christianity calls for holiness. America does not.

America does call for people to obey the laws of the constitution and those laws created by congress.

America calls for democracy. Christianity does not.

Actually, America is a republic not a democracy. Christ calls us to be ambassadors (representatives if you will). America’s government calls for us to be representatives as well.

America calls for "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," constrained only by those things held to jeopardize the commonweal. Christianity calls for constraining all of these things by the will of God. America revolves around human will and desire, while Christianity revolves around divine will and desire.

My point is that “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” can coincide with a divine will and desire. If I dedicate my life, my free will, and my joy to pleasing Christ than I have in essence fulfilled the American ideal as well.

Now after saying all that I do want to clarify that in no way am I doing a one to one comparison of following America to following Christ. I do understand the differences. However, there are common threads of idealogies and I find none that contradict each other. Also, following Christ is first and foremost above anything else.

There is a difference between praying for the welfare of a nation and its leaders, and pledging allegiance to the same. The two matters should not be confused.

In a later posting, you have referred to the duty to obey one's leaders. This also is a separate matter from pledging allegiance.

The way I view pledging allegiance is like the way Daniel was loyal to Nebuchadnezzar. Daniel was only loyal to him as long as it didn’t encroach on his loyalty to God.

From my perspective: I myself condemn no one, for there is one who is the judge. But withholding allegiance is not condemnation; granting allegiance, however, is both endorsement and pledge of investment. It is certainly debatable whether or not the American republic should be granted endorsement and investment from a Christian individual. Since it is fairly debatable, it seems inappropriate to take one stance over another in a gathering of the Christian community.

I’m sorry; your previous statement led me to believe that you are judging America on what it does:

From a Jewish perspective: you tell what a nation stands for by what it does, not by what it says. America stands for materialism and pleasure-seeking in the face of basic human need, sexual permissiveness, the destruction of human life in the fetal stage, and the protection of satanic worship and literature. Of course, some would call these things liberty.

Well, from a Jewish perspective I would prefer that you not preach Christianity to anybody .

Come now…you obviously have no problem seeking that teaching on this website. I could setup a Christian bible study at your place.

But approaching this in philosophical terms, once again, it comes down to examining the purpose of the faith community. A primary purpose of the Christian community, historically, has been to preach the Christian gospel. For the vast majority of Christian history, it has not been the primary purpose of the faith community to stand allegiant to the American republic. What is more, a review of history suggests that the faith community can suffer when it does take a stand of allegiance to secular power. Rather than settling into its orbit around the person and will of God, the faith community wobbles in an eccentric path around two gravitational forces: the will of God and the concerns of the state.

I agree that is possible, but what I am proposing is a loyalty to one’s country as long as it doesn’t supersede one’s loyalty to God. Just like the example of Daniel.

This is a typical Protestant response. But the concern for unity has long been a primary facet of Christianity. In effect, you are telling others to take a hike if they don't care for your own preference. You are robbing them of their fair claim to a share in the community of Christian faith. The ability for them to participate in Christian community is their rightful possession, and it should not be contravened for any non-Christian matter.

Sorry, that I didn’t fully represent my viewpoint on this matter. I find this issue to be a secondary issue that nobody should take offense. If someone doesn’t want to take the pledge than that is their prerogative. However, if I want to take the pledge than they should show the same respect in return. If they can’t show that same respect than I feel they can find another Church that shares their sentiment.

I believe in unity to a point. Christians are not going to agree on every matter. The only time unity should be threatened is when it comes down to foundational Christian beliefs. Such as salvation, resurrection, who God is, etc. Saying the pledge is not a foundational belief to me or threatens it in any way. If I went to a church where they were against saying the pledge than I would just live with it, I would not leave because of that issue.

Will you pardon my referencing your own apostle? "Give no occasion for stumbling - even to the Jews, even to the Greeks, even to the church of God - Just as I please everyone in everything, seeking not that which is to my enrichment, but that which is the enrichment of the many, that they may be saved" [1 Cor. 10:32-33]. "Giving no occasion for stumbling in anything, that the ministry might not be blamed" [2 Cor. 6:3]. Importing allegiance to a secular power into the Christian sphere is bringing in a potential stumbling-block that is immaterial to the gospel, and it potentially casts a shadow on the ministry - for no essential Christian purpose.

I guess this is where we will have to agree to disagree because I still feel that one can pledge their loyalty to a nation whose ideals and standards don’t run contrary to their Christian beliefs. I don’t see this as being a stumbling block. If I were to practice some of the things you say America stands for than yes that would be a stumbling block.

But you have spoken of apologizing for evil done in the name of what you believe in. It is important to recognize that apology is not about acknowledging guilt per se, but about healing wounded relationships. Christians should be humble enough to make apologies and expressions of sorrow, regardless of their personal blamelessness, out of a sheer passion to heal ruptured relations and open the door for sharing the gospel of Christ. But as for our American topic, since when is allegiance to the republic a parcel of what Christians believe in? Ah, yes, since the church mortgaged its soul to the American experiment. Ironic, given such emphatic objection to the old Constantine.

I didn’t say apologize for the evil that I have done, but apologizing for the evil others have done who claim to be a Christian. Yes, I can always try and heal a wounded relationship, but the apology can only go so far because the perpetrator who committed the crime did so under false pretenses. I guess it might help in some superficial way, but really I am not the one who committed the crime. It would be better for me to try and convince them that the person who committed the crime did not do that for Christ, but for themselves. This way they can give appropriate blame.

Could be - but I'm actually anti-American. I do not subscribe to democracy as a political construct (since the majority of people I have met are not fit to govern a country, including myself), I do not support blanket religious freedom (since the Torah does not), and I disagree with numerous secular parameters legally established in this country (seeing as they do not coincide with those in the Torah).

At least you have the freedom to express such ideals and to believe in them even if they are contrary to the freedom that allows you to express them.

As always Emmet a definite pleasure chatting with you.

Take care.

[Guest]

Matt,

I see nothing wrong in what you did. Afterall, in Acts 21, we see Paul taking a Nazarite vow in order to not offend the believing Jews still "zealous" for the law. The other apostles even urged him to keep the law. Paul himself said:

1 Cor 9:19-21
19 For though I am free from all men, I have made myself a servant to all, that I might win the more; 20 and to the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might win Jews; to those who are under the law, as under the law, that I might win those who are under the law; 21 to those who are without law, as without law (not being without law toward God, but under law toward Christ), that I might win those who are without law;
NKJV

I know that if someone actually asked you, you would truthfully share your convictions. But I agree that we shouldn't go out of our way to stand out simply to make a statement about our personal convictions on a disputable matter.

Lord bless.

Thanks Chris, those are my exact thoughts

[Guest]

Mattrose, I agree with Chris and you! Thanks for answering my question about whether or not you said the pledge....I'm sorry if it was a nosy question, I didn't mean to pry, I was just curious.

[Guest]

Hi, Micah,

Thanks for your responses!

I thought I would comment quickly in the Revolutionists own words:

Quote:
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & Perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.

Surely Mr. Jefferson knew better than to believe his own rhetoric here. I find it hard to accept at face value. Were the English crucifying colonists by the hundreds along the roadside? Were they kidnapping colonists and subjecting them to lifelong enslavement? Were they throwing colonists into the arena with wild beasts? Please.

The Revolutionists got their breeches in a twist because the British taxed their favored beverage, and when the Empire was oh-so-dastardly as to financially undercut their tea smuggling, some of them undertook the destruction of private property. Benjamin Franklin was so mortified that he offered to repay the loss (about 10,000 British pounds!) out of his own money.

I guess I haven’t worn you out just yet.

I fatigue on occasion, but then again, occasionally I recover.

American does call for a faith and trust in our representatives to represent those who put him/her into power. ... America does call for people to obey the laws of the constitution and those laws created by congress. ... America’s government calls for us to be representatives as well.

I fail to see what this has to do with the price of Christian beans. These callings are classically American, yet immaterial to Christianity. Your arguments serve to reinforce my point that America is human-centered, placing faith in the political constructs and activities of men rather than the revealed paradigms of God. What is remarkable is that you seemingly regard these callings as comparable to the callings of your faith.

Actually, America is a republic not a democracy.

I am aware of the common distinction. But the United States is a representative democracy; some of its states incorporate a blend of direct and representative democracies. The essential component to definition is that sovereignty and rule are assigned to the people (thus, not to God).

...there are common threads of idealogies and I find none that contradict each other.

Tabling the issue of whether there actually are no threads which are contradictory - even though the one ideology protects certain practices of evil, where the more holy one forbids them and offers them no protection - what we are addressing here is a positive issue and not a negative issue. Omitting the pledge in Christian worship is not a denial of American ideology. But no matter of coincidence necessitates the affirmation of a secular, non-Christian entity in the communion of the faithful. Should the meeting of the Christian body involve pledges of loyalty to the United Nations, the fire department, and the high school football team? Is Christianity about binding believers to secular institutions, or about binding them to Christ and his church?

And certainly the American institution does not allow reciprocal privileges. Does the United States incorporate a pledge of allegiance to Christianity into any of its activities?

The way I view pledging allegiance is like the way Daniel was loyal to Nebuchadnezzar. Daniel was only loyal to him as long as it didn’t encroach on his loyalty to God.

But did Daniel insist upon inserting a pledge of loyalty to Nebuchadnezzar into the community worship? What we are addressing is the imposition of one party's preference - a preference that is immaterial to their faith - upon the broader faith community.

your previous statement led me to believe that you are judging America on what it does

Our society is sometimes imprecise about what it considers "judging." My prior statement involved personal appraisal. Judgment involves the rendering of a verdict that is held to be authoritative.

I could setup a Christian bible study at your place.

Easily. At least three of my housemates are Christian guys, so it'd be ready-made. But my weakness leans on the format of this forum, where I can research and think before I throw something out for discussion.

I find this issue to be a secondary issue that nobody should take offense. If someone doesn’t want to take the pledge than that is their prerogative. However, if I want to take the pledge than they should show the same respect in return. If they can’t show that same respect than I feel they can find another Church that shares their sentiment.

By this you show that it is more important for you to inject a secondary, non-Christian value into the Christian fellowship than to celebrate in unity without distraction.

What is more, you are willing to risk alienating a non-Christian visitor from the gospel for this secondary issue. This alienation is one stumbling-block which you do not see:

I still feel that one can pledge their loyalty to a nation whose ideals and standards don’t run contrary to their Christian beliefs. I don’t see this as being a stumbling block. If I were to practice some of the things you say America stands for than yes that would be a stumbling block.

You are willing to cast a potential distraction or obstacle into the path of one who might otherwise be more receptive to the light of your faith.

Beyond this, you are willing to cast the stumbling-block into the path of your brother who might scruple at pledging allegiance to a nation. Would not your apostle counsel you to deny your preference for the sake of the weaker brother, at least within the community life?

I didn’t say apologize for the evil that I have done, but apologizing for the evil others have done who claim to be a Christian. Yes, I can always try and heal a wounded relationship, but the apology can only go so far because the perpetrator who committed the crime did so under false pretenses. ... It would be better for me to try and convince them that the person who committed the crime did not do that for Christ, but for themselves. This way they can give appropriate blame.

Perhaps - but humility and commiseration are often a necessary accompaniment to reassigning the blame. They are the balm that soothes the emotional aspect of offense. Without that step, many audiences will not be receptive to listening about the putative falseness of the offender's Christianity.

At least you have the freedom to express such ideals and to believe in them even if they are contrary to the freedom that allows you to express them.

Undeniably, that freedom is convenient. But it in no way makes me beholden to it. Its convenience does not buy my acquiescence or my embrace.


Whew! Lots of work..... And I still have outstanding posts to get to for you! But a privilege and a blessing for you to put me through the workout.

Shalom,
Emmet

[Guest]

Well Emmet here I am again. You know you can’t get rid of me that easy.

Surely Mr. Jefferson knew better than to believe his own rhetoric here. I find it hard to accept at face value. Were the English crucifying colonists by the hundreds along the roadside? Were they kidnapping colonists and subjecting them to lifelong enslavement? Were they throwing colonists into the arena with wild beasts? Please.

The Revolutionists got their breeches in a twist because the British taxed their favored beverage, and when the Empire was oh-so-dastardly as to financially undercut their tea smuggling, some of them undertook the destruction of private property. Benjamin Franklin was so mortified that he offered to repay the loss (about 10,000 British pounds!) out of his own money.

You know I am not really one to know who had it worst. We sit here in our cozy computer chairs with a lot of amenities. How could I really compare those two realities? I can only go by the examples they give me and what history has written down. I guess if my family was being slaughtered by savages, or I was forced to execute a friend, or placed under some kind of torture (like the Revolutionists were) than I could relate to the earlier Christian martyrs in the sense that torture is torture and a loss of a loved one in brutal fashion is the same no matter what time period it takes place in. I think both time periods were of equal brutality just in a different sense. Also, if you think it was just taxes that the Revolutionists got upset about I suggest you do a little more research on the subject and at least read the Declaration of Independence.

I fail to see what this has to do with the price of Christian beans. These callings are classically American, yet immaterial to Christianity. Your arguments serve to reinforce my point that America is human-centered, placing faith in the political constructs and activities of men rather than the revealed paradigms of God. What is remarkable is that you seemingly regard these callings as comparable to the callings of your faith.

I don’t regard these things as comparable to the callings of my faith; I just believe that my faith to Christ can coincide with my human activities as well. If I go out to obtain a career which is not in the ministry is that wrong because the career is human-centered or can I merge the two and find a common ground in fulfilling my duties to Christ through non-ministry means?

Also, I wouldn’t say it is placing faith in political constructs as much as it is placing trust in the individuals elected that hold positions of leadership. If that individual breaks our trust relationship than it is our duty to elect someone else to take their place. The American political construct is what allows us to keep leaders in check.

Also, what revealed paradigms of God would you have us follow? Did not God ordain governments in the first place? America lays a foundation that allows one to not be human centered, but to be God centered if they want to be. That is what is great about this country. It allows us to be either one and the choice is up to you.

I am aware of the common distinction. But the United States is a representative democracy; some of its states incorporate a blend of direct and representative democracies. The essential component to definition is that sovereignty and rule are assigned to the people (thus, not to God).

You act as though humans were never given the ability to govern at all. Wasn’t it the Israelites who wanted a King and God granted them their desire? Yes, it would be better to be ruled under the authority of God alone because he is just and fair, but he allowed us to have our way and he appointed those he wanted to be into power. Also, just because people are placed in authority over us it doesn’t mean they are the ultimate authority which is why I have been trying to explain that they get overruled when they overstep their bounds in making rules against God’s laws.

At least the American system allows people the chance to correct those that do overstep their bounds instead of being held mercilessly at the hands of a brutal dictator. Unfortunately, we as a people have not held our due diligence.

Tabling the issue of whether there actually are no threads which are contradictory - even though the one ideology protects certain practices of evil, where the more holy one forbids them and offers them no protection - what we are addressing here is a positive issue and not a negative issue.

So, is it better to oppress people into obedience about something they have no desire to be obedient? If people want to practice evil they are allowed to do so, but that doesn’t mean they are not going to be held accountable for their actions. We are still held to the moral laws of God and suffer the consequences of breaking those laws even if a human government doesn’t apply any consequences.

Omitting the pledge in Christian worship is not a denial of American ideology. But no matter of coincidence necessitates the affirmation of a secular, non-Christian entity in the communion of the faithful. Should the meeting of the Christian body involve pledges of loyalty to the United Nations, the fire department, and the high school football team? Is Christianity about binding believers to secular institutions, or about binding them to Christ and his church?

Like I have always stated if something does not contradict one’s Christian beliefs than I have no problem with one pledging their loyalty to it, also if any of those entities that you mentioned had any contribution to allowing me to worship in Church without fear of retribution than I see no problems honoring it as a blessing from God.

And certainly the American institution does not allow reciprocal privileges. Does the United States incorporate a pledge of allegiance to Christianity into any of its activities?

Actually, there is a prayer before every meeting of congress. Does that count?

But did Daniel insist upon inserting a pledge of loyalty to Nebuchadnezzar into the community worship? What we are addressing is the imposition of one party's preference - a preference that is immaterial to their faith - upon the broader faith community.

Of course not, but neither am I. If someone attends a church where everyone is pledging allegiance to the flag and someone doesn’t want to participate than fine. I will not hold it against them. I may inquire why they don’t, but that would be it.

If one attends a church where you have to listen to dispensationalist preaching, is that fair to those who don’t agree with it? Especially, if they feel that dispensationalist preaching would lead someone astray (a stumbling block if you will).

Our society is sometimes imprecise about what it considers "judging." My prior statement involved personal appraisal. Judgment involves the rendering of a verdict that is held to be authoritative.

By the tone of your text used it seems you were judging these things as bad, were you not? How can you have an unbiased appraisal of things that go against your beliefs?

Easily. At least three of my housemates are Christian guys, so it'd be ready-made. But my weakness leans on the format of this forum, where I can research and think before I throw something out for discussion.

Dinner discussion and holidays must be interesting.

By this you show that it is more important for you to inject a secondary, non-Christian value into the Christian fellowship than to celebrate in unity without distraction.

That is not true because you’re defining that accusation by your own definition of unity. Like I said before there are many things Christians disagree on and it is very likely you won’t find a church that agrees with every position you hold on every theological subject. Does this mean that the church should stop every single thing that may be debatable to Christians because they might break up over what you consider unity? There are things to break up unity over and other things that are just not important.

What is more, you are willing to risk alienating a non-Christian visitor from the gospel for this secondary issue. This alienation is one stumbling-block which you do not see:

If they are going to leave a church because of a pledge than one has to ask were they really seeking God in the first place?

You are willing to cast a potential distraction or obstacle into the path of one who might otherwise be more receptive to the light of your faith.

Beyond this, you are willing to cast the stumbling-block into the path of your brother who might scruple at pledging allegiance to a nation. Would not your apostle counsel you to deny your preference for the sake of the weaker brother, at least within the community life?

The only time where that idea is stated in scripture, that I can remember, it is referring to an actual sin. So, the question really comes down to saying is the pledge a sin or not? In my opinion it is not as long as what you’re pledging your loyalty to doesn’t go against your Christian belief. One may argue like Steve and you have about what our country does today, but in my heart that is not what I am pledging to uphold.

Perhaps - but humility and commiseration are often a necessary accompaniment to reassigning the blame. They are the balm that soothes the emotional aspect of offense. Without that step, many audiences will not be receptive to listening about the putative falseness of the offender's Christianity.

True. That is what I meant by some superficial means.

Undeniably, that freedom is convenient. But it in no way makes me beholden to it. Its convenience does not buy my acquiescence or my embrace.

That’s too bad, because good men gave you that freedom with their blood.

Whew! Lots of work..... And I still have outstanding posts to get to for you! But a privilege and a blessing for you to put me through the workout.

Hey I do my best. This is no walk in the park for me either. But I would like to say that I do appreciate the dialogue very much even though it may appear frustrating on both ends because we never give an inch. God bless you Emmet.

[Guest]

During Jesus' time on earth, he lived under the government of both Rome and Herod Antipas. From historical records, we know that Rome condoned infanticide, believed that the emperor was both human and god, and exploited such banana republics as the Zealot stronghold at the northern end of the Sea of Galilee at Capernaum and Bethsaida. To keep order, Rome used an army to enforce taxation and safe travel. As you know, these soldiers were required to serve under the banner of Rome. On one occasion, disturbances broke out because Roman flags flew at the Antonia which adjoined the Jerusalem temple. Since no other god's symbol was to be tolerated in Israel, an uprising took place. These soldiers were commanded by centurions. Centurions were well paid and no doubt pledged their allegiance to Rome and the divine emperor.

Did Jesus ever encounter a situation that may address Matt's question?
Yes. Matthew 8:5-13 and Luke 7:1-10 both relate Jesus' encounter with a centurion. The centurion had a servant whom was ill and about to die. Through the Jewish elders, the centurion asked Jesus to heal the sick man. In both accounts, the centurion recognized Jesus as Lord. He also built the Capernaum synagogue so it is likely that the centurion was a God-Fearer if not a proselyte to Judaism. In both accounts, the centurion recognizes Jesus' authority to heal.

In Matthew 8:10-12, Jesus commends the centurion for his faith. Faith is always directed toward God. Jesus makes it clear that he has not found such faith in Israel but, by his reference to people from the east and west taking their place at the feast in heaven, he makes it clear that a believing Gentile from Rome to the west or a mercenary soldier from lands to the east could enter the presence of God.

We then have a situation where Jesus has commended a man who serves an emperor who claims to be divine and condones infanticide and who would be required to put down any uprisings by Zealot revolutionaries in the banana republic of Galilee. Furthermore, since the church meets where 2 or more believers are present, it appears that church was in session at the centurion's home. The head of the church was present physically. It is likely that some Roman symbol was present at the centurion's home. Yet, there is no record of Jesus rebuking the centurion.

Care to comment?

livingink

[Guest]

Sure.

1. Jesus did not go to the centurion's home, so there was church gathering there.

2. The man may or may not have been a "God-fearer." We know that he recognised a power in the miracle-working Christ that convinced him that Jesus had some important divine connections. Whether there was anything distinctly Christian, or even Jewish, in the man's conceptions of God is not known to us.

3. The fact that Jesus did not rebuke a person does not suggest His approval of everything in which they were involved. Think of how much of His time He would have had to spend issuing rebukes, if that were obligatory every time someone he encountered had some issue in their private lives which He did not countenance. Yet how relatively few rebukes we read of in His ministry!

4. Jesus probably never laid eyes on the man nor had any direct audience with him. As you have pointed out, Luke's version represents the whole dialogue as being conducted through messengers. This could have something to do with the fact that He did not discuss every matter of concern with him.

5. Even if the man had become a full-fledged disciple (as did the other centurion Cornelius), it would be sheer guesswork to suggest what Jesus may or may not have instructed him to do about his military command or any other matter relevant to his life-reformation. We can be sure that those who became disciples received far more subsequent instruction than those few sentences recorded in the narration of their stories.

6. At first, I thought your post was going to go a different direction. The things you said about Rome's attrocities made me think you were going to point out that the early Christians saw no need to rebel from under the tryrany of Rome, and then would raise the question why the colonists felt justified in rising up against their tyrant, if the early Christians followed no such policy toward Caesar..

[Guest]

Good analysis Steve. I do appreciate your fairness even with people like me who might not agree with you on all subjects.

I am curious what your thoughts would be on Zaccheus:

In that time period were tax collectors considered traitors for aligning themselves with the Romans or just for abusing their power?

If it was also because of alignment than wouldn't Zaccheus changed careers after his conviction?

And wouldn't Jesus have recommended him to do so if it was wrong like he did with the prostitute?

Thanks.

[Guest]

"At first, I thought your post was going to go a different direction. The things you said about Rome's attrocities made me think you were going to point out that the early Christians saw no need to rebel from under the tryrany of Rome, and then would raise the question why the colonists felt justified in rising up against their tyrant, if the early Christians followed no such policy toward Caesar."

This has always puzzled me about the notion that America was founded because Christians wanted to worship in freedom. All other debates about history aside, I never could wrap my mind around the argument that Christians started a bloody revolution so they could freely conduct the liturgies of their choice.

Many say America was founded on Christian principles. I just don't see the Revolution as a demonstration of those principles.

I'm reminded of what Jesus said about His servants and fighting. "My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, My servants would fight, so that I should not be delivered to the Jews; but now My kingdom is not from here."

Maybe I'm wrong.