The extent to which we have to invent or even feign caveats should, itself, give us pause.
Christians and the Pledge of Allegiance
By Steve Hampton
“I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.”
This public oath, taught to children and repeated by most Americans many times throughout their lives, is familiar to us all. Yet, what does it mean for Christians? Should Christians be making such an oath, a promise, a pledge? Furthermore, what should be a Christian’s attitude toward his or her country?
Let’s begin by examining the Pledge. Take out the flag part, as it’s just a symbol of the republic for which it stands. And set aside the “one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all,” as those are just descriptions of the republic (which may be revisited later).[1] We’re left with “I pledge allegiance to the republic.” That is the essence of the Pledge. But what are we really saying? “Allegiance” in the dictionary is defined as “loyalty, or the obligation of loyalty, as to a nation…” “Pledge” is defined as “a formal promise”. So, while each may have his or her own interpretation, I suggest the most general meaning of the Pledge of Allegiance is a formal, public promise of loyalty to our nation.
Without major caveats, it seems inappropriate that a Christian should make such a promise. Let’s begin, of course, with Jesus, and then look to the example of the early Church. Jesus announced early in His ministry that He was bringing “the Good News of the Kingdom of God” (Luke 4:43). He repeatedly refers to His Kingdom, noting that it is “not of this world” (John 18:36).[2] Indeed, His Kingdom (and its characteristics as laid out in the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew 5) is so unlike worldly Kingdoms as to invite confusion, scorn, and ridicule. It is not delimited by geographic borders, nor defended by a military. The Jews, outraged that this so-called messiah was not leading a violent overthrow of the Roman occupation army, called for His execution. His Kingdom relied on other methods, but would still grow “like a mustard seed” (Matthew 13:31).
The early Christian church, whether members of a people group occupied by Rome, or Romans themselves, considered themselves members of the Kingdom of God. They believed themselves to be the beginnings of the glorious prophecies in Isaiah whereby people “will beat their swords into plowshares” (Isaiah 2:4), led by a “Prince of Peace, of the increase of his government and peace there will be no end” (Isaiah 9:6-7).[3] They believed these things were being fulfilled within their small growing church, the Kingdom of God. In this sense, they viewed themselves as very much apart from the normal political spectrum and off the political map. Much like Native American tribes in the United States today, they considered themselves an independent nation, although physically within the boundaries of a worldly nation. The early church referred to itself as “a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation” (1 Peter 2:9), whose “citizenship” was in heaven (Philippians 3:20). God, they said, “has made us to be a kingdom” (Revelation 1:6).[4]
This notion of the church’s “independence” from earthly kingdoms is quite stark in some New Testament writings. When John was imprisoned on the island of Patmos (the Roman equivalent of Alcatraz), he penned a letter now known as the book of Revelation. Amidst imagery of the persecution of believers, he describes “the kings of the earth” in negative terms throughout the book. They stand in contrast to “the multitude” of believers.[5] Clearly, John viewed the church as a people living within, but yet apart, from all worldly kingdoms. The early church willingly and routinely faced persecution and death, often over their refusal to join the military or pledge an oath to Caesar.
Both Jesus and Paul addressed the specific question of loyalty to government in two well-known texts, Matthew 22 and Romans 13. When the Pharisees attempted to put Jesus into a Catch-22 over the question of paying taxes to the Romans, he asked whose image was on the coin. “Caesar’s,” they replied. “Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s,” Jesus replied (Matthew 22:21). It’s a cute answer, but what does it mean? The coin clearly belongs to Caesar; it has his image on it. But then what belongs to God? Well, what has God’s image on it? Yes, the word “image” is the same used to denote that we are created “in the image of God” (Genesis 1:27). Noting that even Caesar is made in the image of God, we see that what is God’s encompasses all things, including the coin. It is now less clear whether we should give that coin back to Caesar. However, what is clear is that loyalty to God clearly has supremacy over loyalty to Caesar.
When Paul writes to the Romans, he is writing to a church so persecuted that they are on the verge of forsaking their traditional peaceful, non-violent response (often termed “patient endurance” (e.g., Revelation 1:9)) and turning to weapons to defend themselves or even attack the Roman authorities. The relevant passage reads:
“Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everybody. If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone. Do not take revenge, my friends, but leave room for God’s wrath, for it is written: ‘It is mine to avenge; I will repay,’ says the Lord. On the contrary: ‘If your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink. In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head.’ Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good. Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted… it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience (Romans 12:17-13:5).
This is perhaps the most oft-quoted passage in the New Testament used to support patriotism, loyalty, and obedience to country.[6] The context, however, must be remembered. Paul himself, by preaching the Good News of the Kingdom, disobeyed Roman law and was imprisoned. He no doubt knew the words of the apostles, “We must obey God rather than men!” (Acts 5:29), as he was present (as Saul) at the stoning of Stephen. This rather obvious qualifier to Romans 13 opens the door to subjecting all state policies to the litmus test of God’s law. The main intent of the passage appears to be to calm the church’s desire to strike back and to encourage them to stay on their non-violent course. One of the motivating factors that Paul uses is to remind them that God uses governments, both evil and good, for His purposes.[7] In this case, it appears that Paul is calling the authorities “evil”, but nevertheless requires submission to them. In this case, submission means a non-violent response to persecution and a willingness to accept the punishments of the authorities.[8] It is not, however, a submission of the Kingdom of God to a worldly kingdom. Rather, submission to their persecutors (combined with servanthood and acts of love) was merely one of the methods by which the members of the church would communicate the message of Jesus to their oppressors. The ultimate loyalty of the church, of course, remained with the Kingdom of God.
When not openly persecuted, the early church was often publicly criticized for its failure to support the Roman military and perceived lack of loyalty. These Christians were, at best, bad citizens. At worst, they were a threat to the state. To this complaint, church leader Origen responded, “You urge us to fight for the king… [but] we by our prayer vanquish all demons who stir up war and lead to the violation of oaths and disturb the peace. We in this way are much more helpful to the kings than those who go into the field to fight for them.”
All this said, there are many functions of the state that are good and in no way conflict with the Kingdom of God. A state (or any organizational structure) is simply a group of people binding themselves together to provide for common needs.[9] Thus, a state, at its most basic level, is an example of human cooperation to provide goods and services. Many of these services are humanitarian in nature (e.g., sewers, fire protection, schools). To this end, it certainly seems within the teachings of Jesus to participate and cooperate in these endeavors. In Paul’s epistles, submission to government authorities is often mentioned along with obedience of wives to husbands and slaves to masters (e.g., Titus 2:2-3:2, 2 Peter 2:13-3:6).[10] The proper attitude was one of respect and loving servanthood (the usual methods of Christ), but did not include carte blanche allegiance.
Suppose now that we take all the above into account and are comfortable reciting the Pledge of Allegiance with the major caveat that loyalty to God comes first. We would still have to add an additional caveat. We cannot pledge exclusive loyalty to any one nation at the expense of another nation, should two nations come into conflict. First of all, there are now Christian churches in every nation.[11] Clearly, the idea that Christians enter into conflict against each other, under the banner of their earthly nation of residence, is unpalatable. We bemoan the Civil War in the United States, the slaughter of Hutus and Tutsis in Rwanda, and on-going bloodshed in Northern Ireland —all instances where nearly all combatants called themselves Christian, and yet loyalty to state, ethnicity, or simply economic concerns led them to forsake the Kingdom of God.
We are called to have a missionary focus, to love all peoples, and to “make disciples of all nations” (Matthew 28:19). In fact, the term “all nations” appears so many times in the New Testament (and the messianic prophecies in Isaiah) that there is no need to emphasize the point that our God is international in scope. Paul, in visiting and discipling believers across the Mediterranean, appeared far too busy with “Kingdom work” that he had no place for political allegiance; he was a missionary and he loved all whom he visited. He epitomized Jesus’ description of His followers, having no true earthly home, “no place to lay his head” (Matthew 8:20). We, too, are called to view the world as missionaries, to be “Christ’s ambassadors” (2 Corinthians 5:20), working to further His Kingdom and make it grow. Given this life-encompassing calling to be workers in God’s Kingdom, it seems that we have to put so many caveats on the Pledge of Allegiance as to make it meaningless. Rather than deceive our fellow Americans by reciting an oath with so many qualifiers, let us respectfully decline and follow the example of the early church. Rather than participate in the sacramentum, the pledge of allegiance to the Roman emperor (or, for recruits, to the Roman military), the early church considered the bread and wine of communion as their alternative pledge, which we now know by that name: sacrament. That was the only pledge they said.
[1] This article does not discuss the current debate over the inclusion of “under God” in the Pledge.
[2] “The Kingdom” is mentioned over 100 times in the four Gospels.
[3] Justin Martyr, a 2nd century church leader, wrote "We who were filled with war and mutual slaughter...changed our warlike weapons into plowshares and our spears into implements of tillage."
[4] This seems a far different notion from many Christians in America today, who typically view loyalty to country as an obligation, while the Kingdom of God simply refers to the afterlife or is relegated to a status akin to that of a philanthropic society.
[5] Eventually, “the kings of the earth” come to worship the Lamb when “the kingdom of the world has become the Kingdom of our Lord” (Revelation 11:15).
[6] Ironically, this passage is one of the only passages in the New Testament used to justify war. In these instances, the verses from Romans 12 are not cited. Instead, the verses from Romans 13 are simply lifted out of context and applied toward a wide variety of government actions.
[7] The Old Testament contains many examples of God using Israel to punish other nations, and vice versa. The Babylonian captivity, which spans significant parts of the Old Testament, is the most prominent example of the latter.
[8] This was a central tenet of Gandhi’s non-violent practices as well, to willingly accept the punishment inflicted by the state. Cyprian, an early Christian leader in North Africa, wrote, “Christians are not allowed to kill, but they must be willing to be put to death.”
[9] At least, this was at the heart of John Locke’s political theory of the social contract. In reality, we are born and find ourselves citizens of a pre-existing state over which we have little control.
[10] Paul’s letters do not address the morality of slavery as an institution. They do provide advice for those caught up in slavery, counseling a non-violent Christ-like response that respects the humanity of their masters.
[11] It is interesting to note that one church in Basra, Iraq, was founded by Saint Thomas in the first century A.D. and still recites the liturgy in Aramaic, the language of Jesus.
