To Whom Do You Pledge Your Allegiance?
- Jun 28, 2007 - 6
photo by ERLC
It is not heretical to display the Christian flag along with the American flag in a church auditorium—as long as the church members’ primary allegiance is to the One for whom the Christian flag represents and their secondary allegiance is to the American flag.
In my childhood, I attended Training Union (now called Discipleship Training) every Sunday night before church. We pledged allegiance to the Christian flag, to the Bible, and to the American flag. It was made very clear to whom ultimate allegiance belonged: first to the Bible and to the Christian flag, and then to America. And as long as that is the proper order and priority, there is no problem with flying the flags together.
In this country, we have never had an official relationship whereby the government has placed the flag in the churches. Here, if the U.S. flag is in a church, it is because the church members have chosen to place it there. That’s very different than in European countries, where the flag was often placed in churches by the government because the government owned the church. Only one major country in Western Europe is purely secular—France. In England, Germany, Italy, Spain, and the Scandinavian countries, an official relationship exists between the church and the state.
Nevertheless, it is important for Christians to be reminded regularly and vigorously that their primary allegiance is to God, not country. Francis Schaeffer made this point forcefully to American Evangelicals in The Church at the End of the Twentieth Century (1970):
“In the United States many churches display the American flag. The Christian flag is usually put on one side and the American flag on the other. Does having the two flags in your church mean that Christianity and the American establishment are equal? If it does, you are really in trouble. These are not two equal loyalties. . . . Caesar is second to God. This must be preached and taught in sermons, Sunday school classes, and young people’s groups. It must be taught that patriotic loyalty must not be identified with Christianity.
As Christians we are responsible, under the Lordship of Christ in all of life, to carry the Christian principles into our relationship to the state. But we must not make our country and Christianity to be synonymous.”
For conservatives, watching the church-state boundaries means resisting the temptation to perceive Americans as God’s chosen people and America as God’s chosen nation. It means rejecting attempts to analogize God and Israel to God and America. Americans are not God’s chosen people. America is not God’s chosen nation. Although God surely had a great deal to do with our history, and although God’s involvement with America may put a special claim on America to stand for truth, righteousness, and liberty in the world, that does not in any way mean that America is somehow a privileged nation with a unique relationship to God. The argument that God has a special role for America to play in the world is a doctrine of obligation, responsibility, sacrifice, and service, not pride, privilege, and arrogance.
God has had, and does have, something to do with America—and we have to assume that He will in the future because of the vast numbers of people of religious faith in this country. What many liberals are missing is the danger, the wrongness, the central unfairness of attempting to emasculate, eviscerate, censor, or suppress religious expression in the public square. What many conservatives are missing is that they too often tend to blur and merge the identity of Christianity and God with America—that’s idolatry. Idolatry leads to worship of the state. It leads to suppression of minority viewpoints. Government shouldn’t discriminate in favor of religion or against religion. Instead, government should be accommodating a maximum range of views in the public square.
Any attempt to restore government-sponsored religious observances, such as if the government were to mandate Christian prayer in schools, would inevitably lead to violations of individual freedom and freedom of conscience. That’s the problem with saying, “We have to bring God back into the schools.”
It may be true that we need to get God back into this country, or get this country back to God, but it’s wrong to assume that the government is a legitimate or an effective means of accomplishing such a goal. The government shouldn’t do it, and the government can’t do it. To get God back into America, you need to get an acceptance of God back into individual Americans’ hearts and minds, one at a time. If your goal is like mine—an American society that affirms and practices Judeo-Christian values rooted in biblical authority—then there is no substitute for a majority of Americans affirming Judeo-Christian values rooted in biblical authority. You can’t do that by mandating prayer and Bible reading in public schools. You can’t get there by allowing the government to favor Christianity over other faiths. You can’t do it by mandating government penalties for spiritual infractions of the Christian faith. You’re going to have to have a significant majority of Americans who are seeking to lead lives that are pleasing to God and who are affirming Judeo-Christian values rooted in biblical authority.
Christian first allegiance must be to God. Conservatives must be very careful to avoid violating the rights of others who are not believers by getting government on the side of religion at the expense of nonreligion.
This article is excerpted from Richard Land’s book The Divided States of America? What Liberals AND Conservatives are missing in the God-and-country shouting match! (Thomas Nelson, Inc., 2007), available at local bookstores and at FamilyBookstore.net.
Further Learning
Learn more about: Citizenship, Christian Citizenship, Church and State, Religious Liberty
6 comments (post your own) feed
1 On Jul 1st, 2007, at 4:03pm, Hap Jolliff wrote:
I believe this is a significant issue in the lives of our congregations and wonder to what level of correlation most congregates perceive God and the United States.
The most awesome thing about our Lord is that He doesn’t need or want forced beliefs upon Him, and in fact calls sinners to life in His Son upon a free acceptance of the gift of God in Jesus Christ!
May God truly change each individual heart and give us a compass to live by and a message to proclaim out of the work He has done in us.
Thank you for this perspective and call for us to live the gospel and see it win out in the public square as we are light and salt among all peoples.
2 On Jul 4th, 2007, at 9:39am, Cynthia Carp Baxter wrote:
Your article “To Whom Do You Pledge Allegiance” does a good job of “putting first things first.” However, since this government has never had an “official relationship” with any specific church; and since you specifically write that “government should be accommodating a maximum range of views in the public square,” what is your position on the fact that a Hindu chaplain will open the July session of the U.S. Senate? Indeed, what is your “take” on members of Congress taking their pledge of office on the Koran or other religious “scriptures”? Just curious.
Thanks for your time,
Cynthia Carp Baxter
3 On Jul 11th, 2007, at 11:26pm, Sheryllann Dillon wrote:
I don’t argue that ‘under God’ in the Pledge of Allegiance crossed a line between church and state. What I fail to understand is why the ‘We The People’ doesn’t mean more to we the people! We opt to stop teaching our youth to pledge allegiance instead of so simply re-wording the pledge in order to keep its true meaning upheld? Patriotism?
4 On Jul 26th, 2007, at 1:31pm, eric wrote:
“When fascism comes to America, it will come wrapped in the flag, proclaiming Christianity.”
--- Sinclair Lewis, 1932
5 On Feb 20th, 2008, at 9:38am, George Kosinski wrote:
Is there such a thing as a ‘Christian flag’?? O! Dear! I pray that my allegiance is to the King! The Lord Jesus, the Son of the Living God!
Seek first the Kingdom of God which is not of this world and not to be confused with politics, vain religion and the accessories thereof.
6 On Jun 27th, 2008, at 5:34pm, Mitchell wrote:
In Land’s article he fails to really reflect on the nature of the church and its worship. The issue certainly not a matter of the place of religion in the public square. That is a red herring in a discussion of the flag in church. Because of whose and what the church is there can be no more room for nationalism than there is for racism. A national symbol has exactly as much legitimacy in worship as a racist symbol. Christians come together as Christians and nothing else. For much clearer thinking on this topic check out this: http://www.news-journalonline.com/NewsJournalOnline/News/Headlines/frtHEAD02051508.htm