Last week the Board of Directors at Goshen College (a mennonite school in small town, Indiana) voted to no longer play the National Anthem before sports events. (You can read about it on CNN.com from an alumni of the school).
Their basic thought is this: Our first and only allegiance is to Jesus, who is our King and to the Kingdom he is King of which is coming and also already here. While not all actions of any nation-state interfere with Jesus’ Kingdom, inevitably, every government comes into conflict with the values, principles and beliefs of the Kingdom of God. Because of this, Christians should not give their allegiance to any Kingdom/Empire/Nation other than that of Jesus’ Kingdom.
Interestingly enough (and completely coincidentally), on the same day I read an article about the writer of the Pledge of Allegiance, Francis Bellamy. It seems that for the first 50 years the children and adults would pledge to the flag, they would give it the “Bellamy Salute”…which looks almost exactly like what fascist Nazi Germany would do to salute Hitler about 45 years later. Don’t believe me? Check out these pictures.
As it turns out, Congress changed the official “Flag Code” in 1942 to switch from the Bellamy Salute to what Americans do now…the hand over the heart. You can probably imagine it felt a little uncomfortable to be saluting the flag in the same way that large hordes of people saluted Hitler, a fascist dictator committing mass genocide.
So let’s think about allegiances. Is there really a place of prioritization? What say you? Can you be equally committed to the Cause and Kingdom of Jesus and The State? Or, ultimately, does one have to/need to win out to the exclusion of the other before we are faced with such a choice?
{ 8 comments… read them below or add one }
Goshen College refused to play the national anthem at sporting events for 114 years- until last spring when the board voted to play a musical version of the anthem. Fairly quickly, opposition arose from many within the Historic Peace Tradition to this change. A petition was posted online (I signed it) listing the reasons why Goshen should reestablish the ban on the anthem. The petition outlined three particular reasons why such a ban should remain intact: the anthem glorifies war and violence, the anthem fosters increased national sectarianism rather than the Christian belief in a transnational body undefined by national boundaries, and finally; the anthem is a type of liturgy performed by the state to form communities into state practice.
While each of the points is not unrelated, the third primarily deals with the question of allegiance. It holds the position that as social creatures we are formed as individuals by the communities we inhabit. In fact, Francis Bellamy also compared the ritual repetition of the pledge to church liturgy: “It is the same way with the catechism, or the Lord’s Prayer.” Liturgy, a word that means that a people become something collectively that they were not as individuals, refers to the ritual gestures and language that a community practices to reinforce narrative. By retelling a story, it becomes more and more ingrained in who we are, how we think, and what we do. The problem comes when we begin to recognize that the story of God in Christ is not the story of America (or any other nation-state/corporation). This response could get long, so I will simply end with a quote from William Cavanaugh: “Christ came not to start a new religion but to break down the barrier between human life and God. To be redeemed from our fallen condition, therefore, means to resist the imagination that would bifurcate the world into sacred and secular. Casting away this division also means seeing that Christian liturgy and the liturgies of the world compete on the same playing field, as it were, and that a choice between them must be made…If the Christian liturgy is to reclaimed its centrality to the imagination of a redeemed world, we must look with a critical eye on liturgies that compete for our allegiance” (“The Liturgies of Church and State”).
Well put, Eric! I knew you’d be the first to comment.
I imagine we could throw in a couple of Yoder or Boyd quotes as well.
Realy liked your response, Eric. Very thoughtful and I respect the school’s decision as it’s one school’s decision that seems to be right for them. I do confess that I am personally very comfortable pledging allegiance to my country and see no conflict or competing allegiance with Christ. I think the pledge question gets at the very core of Christian profession. It is true that some Christians feel the church can get caught up in extreme nationalism or be “too patriotic;” that somehow the secular and sacred compete and that our mission or message can get distracted or watered down or bastardized or corrupted if we recite a pledge or hang a flag. I personally lean towards another notion: that a holy life should convert everything we do into holy and vital activity: “and whatever you do, whether in word or in deed, do it all to the glory of God. Col 3:17″ Who better to be patriotic than the Christian? Who better to understand God’s purpose for a nation and to articulate that to others and go out and live to see it fulfilled than the Christian? The pledge can be seen as mindless allegiance to a government just as reciting the Nicean Creed can be mere formalism… or the pledge can be seen as a heart-felt expression of allegiance to an idea…an idea that many died for. For many the pledge conjures an idea that many fought for precisely because they believed it was the will of God to establish a republic under God, and it was their Christian duty to obey that call, however imperfectly. And we are heirs to their sacrifice and beneficiaries of all they left to us. My action of reciting the pledge is more akin to begging God to let me do something half as great as those who fought at Omaha Beach or who took part in the Freedom Rides to Birmingham than it is to cheer-lead, and I find that kind of response in no way glorifies war or conflict, but rather honors sacrifice, bravery, and a host of other Christian virtues. I also am of the opinion that ignorance of the Christian heritage of the United States is a far bigger problem today than an overblown patriotism or idolatrous worship of government that for some the pledge seems to be synonimous with. This is a vital subject that goes way beyond the pledge. My favorite book on this subject is The Light and the Glory by Peter Marshall which examines the question, Did God have a plan for America? It’s a great primer on church history in America. I also am a big fan of David Barton and Wallbuilders. I hope my perspective is useful to everyone. God bless! David
For me, it is not that the church gets caught being “too patriotic” as such, but that the church has lost its social voice when it comes to matters of social concern. We have been too willing to allow the state to take care of our bodies and the church to take care of the soul. This heretical dichotomy leads to all kinds of destructive tendencies- perhaps made most clear through our routine acquiescence to violence and war.
Perhaps it could be posed differently. The telos, or end, of the state is not the same as the Kingdom of God. We must always recognize that God’s Kingdom does not come through violence and coercion but through the nonviolent love of Christ on the cross so that we may live fully into the peace of Christ. The cross is the sign that violence is not how God responds to violence and injustice. And we as disciples are called to live in a cruciform way. So I would like to say that I mostly agree with your sentiment “that a holy life should convert everything we do into holy and vital activity.” But in order to do this, we cannot give sanction to the way the state does most of its activity. The modern nation-state arose out of centralizing power and wealth primarily through the use of violence. War made the state what it is, creating a different social space that connects “individuals.” All other social communities are now merely to lend their voices as one of many within the whole of the state. The church then just becomes another social club that has little influence while the state is seen as that mystical communion (read nationalism, patriotic fervor) by which we render our thanks and gratitude to past sacrifices. So while American holidays primarily revolve around past battles, wars, and fallen heroes, the church thinks primarily in the present by way of the future. The Eucharistic meal, while a past event, creates an imagination within the community of believers of how the world ought to be and the way God would have us realize it. So within scripture Paul talks about the coming hope of God’s victory and that being the reason we forgive one another in the here and now.
I say all of this to merely piggy-back onto my other comment. A pledge of allegiance, an oath to something that is not God, necessarily conflicts with who God longs for us to be. As the earliest of Christian creeds attests, “Jesus is Lord,” which of course means Caesar is not (even as the early Christians still took advantage of the Roman roads and trade routes, but refused to take an oath or serve in their military).
And yes, Doug- Yoder, Boyd, Hauerwas, Cavanaugh, are all good voices to add to this discussion.
Glad I waited to comment on this comment, Eric. Couldn’t have said it better myself. Though I had many favorites, the top was probably this: “The telos, or end, of the state is not the same as the Kingdom of God.”
I think this is what people don’t see. The State and the Kingdom of God are taking us to two different places. So while there might be times of intersection, there are certainly times of divergence. So while a train heading to Boston and a train headed to NYC can share a track for a period of time, eventually they go to two separate places and you can’t be on both. Great line.
Interesting article and thanks for the follow-up Eric. I think the national anthem before a Christian school’s sporting event doesn’t bother me as much as the American flag hanging in prominent places in our churches. We are fortunate to live in a great country, and I don’t want to be a part of the ‘haters.’ While most churches I know don’t do a pledge to the flag, it still creates an intimate bond of connection between Christianity and Americanism, something we want to avoid. We lose our ability to speak truth to power when we are in bed with power.
Alex, what makes the space of a Christian college different from the space of the church? Is not discipleship to permeate every facet of our being and the social spaces we inhabit? I agree with your sentiment that a flag in the church is something that ought to be avoided, but want to question what makes other spaces different, and therefore justifiable.
Eric, very well said. Tis is a dialogue that needs more traction.