The Pledge during Worship

[Guest]

Whose/what suggestion are you referring to when you asked "...or do what you are suggesting today...?"

From the previous quotes it appears that people are in support of just disobeying governmental authorities when those authorities ask you to do something against your Christian beliefs. Which I completely agree with. However, during the American Revolution they seemed to take it further after years of oppression by the King. Would the Christians of today do the same or just keep suffering the consequences of disobeying the King's unjustly laws and consider it as suffering for Christ?

Fighting back was disobedience and the war was the consequence. What other acts of disobedience and what other consequences are you imagining?

The other acts of disobedience would be like those of today. Disobyeing unjust laws set by those in authority. As far as consequences here is a list of applied by the King:

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.

He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

[Guest]

Hi, Micah,

Thank you again for your prompt response!

Quote: The difference, it seems, is that celebrating Christ is essential to the Christian faith community, while celebrating America is not.

But if both coincide with the same message what is the harm?

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

Second - I have already articulated potential for harm, which will be dealt with further below.

If you sing God bless America in church is that a bad thing especially in light of passages that tell you to pray for your leaders and nation?

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.

From a Christian perspective: should I condemn all of Israel based on what Israel does?

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.

Well let's bring that same thought to Christianity. Should we preach Christianity to a secular nation that has been abused by people claiming to be Christian? Why not just wait for them to come to church?

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

Also, if one doesn't like patriotism in church they do have the freedom to attend a church that doesn't do such a thing.

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.

I think living your life trying not to offend everyone and apologizing for all the evil done by those in the name of whatever you believe in, has led us down a road of compromise and political correctness.

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.

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.

...we live in a country where we have the freedom to express our beliefs and I see no problem in celebrating that freedom by recognizing the country we live in inside the church.

Once again, celebrating the freedom afforded by the current regime is a separate matter from declaring allegiance to said regime.

===================================

tangentially....

I usually find that when someone is Anti-American it is not because they are against what America stands for, but for what it has become (like the points you mentioned above).

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).

The same thing can be said of Christianity (being hypocrites, always wanting money, etc.).

Again, could be - but for me, as regarding America, the problem is in the ideals and fundamental constructs themselves.

===================================

Thanks again for your posting!

Shalom,
Emmet

[Guest]

Hi, Micah,

Just a minor one here :

However, during the American Revolution they seemed to take it further after years of oppression by the King. Would the Christians of today do the same or just keep suffering the consequences of disobeying the King's unjustly laws and consider it as suffering for Christ?

Hmmm.... Was the English oppression more severe than the Roman oppression of Palestine, which early Christianity refused to oppose?

Shalom,
Emmet

[Guest]

Hmmm.... Was the English oppression more severe than the Roman oppression of Palestine, which early Christianity refused to oppose?

Thanks emmet for your responses. When I get time I will respond to your previous post, but I thought I would comment quickly in the Revolutionists own words:

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.

[Guest]

I was put in an interesting situation this morning

The church secretary accidentally left the pledge on the order of worship insert in the bulletin. I knew it was a mistake and assumed the song leader would skip that part, but he (being a very patriotic gentlemen) went ahead and did it anyways.

Like I said before, I am usually on the platform during that part of the service (last week, i simply asked to work in the sound booth instead), so I was very surprised when he asked everyone to stand for the pledge again.

I didn't want to offend anyone, so I stood. Maybe some of you will say I went against my convictions to be approved by men, but I don't think I made a wrong choice. God knows my heart. He knows I'm still keeping the focus in my life on Him and not politics/earthly-nations. He also knows I have a desire not to offend His other children.

I think I would have done more harm than good by sitting there at the front of the sanctuary.

[Guest]

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

[Guest]

HAHAHA Is that GOD?

[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.

[Guest]

Quote:
"However, during the American Revolution they seemed to take it further after years of oppression by the King. Would the Christians of today do the same or just keep suffering the consequences of disobeying the King's unjustly laws and consider it as suffering for Christ?"

Perhaps we could have done what the Canadians did. No revolution, no war, and yet today they are as free as we are. Might patience have produced the same result?

[Guest]

Perhaps we could have done what the Canadians did. No revolution, no war, and yet today they are as free as we are. Might patience have produced the same result?

Can't say I know much about Canadian history. Did they go through the same sufferings as the early colonialists did in America? Also, the Canadians weren't always these peace loving, war hating people you know them as today. Here is an excerpt from wikipedia.com on the Saratoga campaign:

The first of the 1777 campaigns was an expedition from Canada led by General John Burgoyne. The goal was to seize the Lake Champlain and Hudson River corridor, effectively isolating New England from the rest of the American colonies. Burgoyne's invasion had two components: he would lead about 10,000 men along Lake Champlain towards Albany, New York, while a second column of about 2,000 men, led by Barry St. Leger, would move down the Mohawk River valley and link up with Burgoyne in Albany, New York.


Mohawk leader Joseph Brant led both American Indians and white Loyalists in battle.Burgoyne set off in June, and recaptured Fort Ticonderoga in early July. Thereafter, his march was slowed by Americans who destroyed bridges and felled trees in his path. A detachment was sent out to seize supplies but was decisively defeated by American militia in August, depriving Burgoyne of nearly 1,000 men.

Meanwhile, St. Leger—half of his force American Indians led by Joseph Brant—had laid siege to Fort Stanwix. American militiamen and their Indian allies marched to relieve the siege but were ambushed and scattered at the Battle of Oriskany on August 6. When a second relief expedition approached, this time led by Benedict Arnold, St. Leger broke off the siege and returned to Canada.

Burgoyne's army was now reduced to about 6,000 men. Despite these setbacks, he determined to push on towards Albany—a fateful decision which would later produce much controversy. An American army of 8,000 men, commanded by the General Horatio Gates, had entrenched about 10 miles (16 km) south of Saratoga, New York. Burgoyne tried to outflank the Americans but was checked at the first battle of Saratoga in September. Burgoyne's situation was desperate, but he now hoped that help from Howe's army in New York City might be on the way. It was not: Howe had instead sailed away on an expedition to capture Philadelphia. American militiamen flocked to Gates's army, swelling his force to 11,000 by the beginning of October. After being badly beaten at the second battle of Saratoga, Burgoyne surrendered on October 17.

Saratoga is often regarded as the turning point of the war. Revolutionary confidence and determination, suffering from Howe's successful occupation of Philadelphia, was renewed. More importantly, the victory encouraged France to enter the war against Great Britain. For the British, the war had now become much more complicated.