Flags and Idolatry

[stevekehl]

Respect means to honor and obey, reverence means to worship. Secular leaders and governments should be respected. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit should be reverenced.

My anger is at the fact that Protestants as a rule disallow showing reverence or respect to images of any sort in the church with the sole exception of the US flag. If we were to replace the US flag with even a cross, not even a crucifix, most Protestants would not show it the same reverence.

 

[exnihilo]

Respect means to honor and obey, reverence means to worship. Secular leaders and governments should be respected. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit should be reverenced.

Your distinction between respect and reverence seems to be at odds with the Catholic Encylopedia. You can pay reverence to all sorts of things including a country and its flag.

newadvent.org/cathen/07664a.htm

This reverence will be expressed in signs determined by custom and etiquette. It must be noted that all outward marks of respect are only arbitrary signs, like words, and that signs have no inherent necessary connotation. They mean what it is agreed and understood that they shall mean. It is always impossible to maintain that any sign or word must necessarily signify some one idea. Like flags these things have come to mean what the people who use them intend them to mean. Kneeling in itself means no more than sitting. In regard then to genuflections, kisses, incense and such signs paid to any object or person the only reasonable standard is the understood intention of the people who use them. Their greater or less abundance is a matter of etiquette that may well differ in different countries. Kneeling especially by no means always connotes supreme adoration. People for a long time knelt to kings. The Fathers of Nicaea II further distinguish between absolute and relative worship. Absolute worship is paid to any person for his own sake. Relative worship is paid to a sign, not at all for its own sake, but for the sake of the thing signified. The sign in itself is nothing, but it shares the honour of its prototype. An insult to the sign (a flag or statue) is an insult to the thing of which it is a sign; so also we honour the prototype by honouring the sign. In this case all the outward marks of reverence, visibly directed towards the sign, turn in intention towards the real object of our reverence — the thing signified. The sign is only put UP as a visible direction for our reverence, because the real thing is not physically present. Every one knows the use of such signs in ordinary life. People salute flags, bow to empty thrones, uncover to statues and so on, nor does any one think that this reverence is directed to coloured bunting or wood and stone.

It is this relative worship that is to be paid to the cross, images of Christ and the saints, while the intention directs it all really to the persons these things represent…

That is still the standpoint of the Catholic Church. The question was settled for us by the Seventh Œcumenical Council; nothing has since been added to that definition. The customs by which we show our “respect and worshipful honour” for holy images naturally vary in different countries and at different times. Only the authority of the Church has occasionally stepped in, sometimes to prevent a spasmodic return to Iconoclasm, more often to forbid excesses of such signs of reverence as would be misunderstood and give scandal.

I don’t know about the churches in your area, but where I live there are crosses, pictures of Jesus, the Last Supper, banners, all displayed at churches. I guess that’s why I don’t understand your ire.

I can tell you that there is a belief in many protestant churches, and naturally among many protestants themselves, that images should not be used. In fact this is not new but an old heresy called Iconoclasm. Some protestants will at most have a cross, not a crucifix, in the church and that cross will not be prominent or large. For some the exclusion of images is more limited to the sanctuary itself.

If the people attending your church don’t show reverence for God maybe you should change churches.

That is not at all what I said. The people at my church show reverence to God. In fact they worship God. What I said was my church, like so many protestants churches, generally rejects the use of images in the sanctuary because they believe you are not to show reverence to images and yet shows reverence to a flag.

If you dont have a problem with showing reverence to holy images you are certainly on better ground than someone who does. But if you reject showing reverence to holy images then you most certainly should not show reverence in church to a secular image.

I don’t think anyone would have understood respect the president in the first century, but the application is plain. This reminds me of talking to a prisoner who said it should be ok to use cocaine because the Bible doesn’t say “don’t snort coke”.

Dont sell the ancients short. Athenian democracy was 400 years prior to the first century. The Roman Republic, which predated the Empire into which Christ was born had a Senate and Consuls which were essentially like presidents.

My point had nothing to do with challenging the principle of respecting the civil authority. My point was that the Bible says to show that respect to kings. Therefore one can not reject the idea of a kingdom and its king being worthy forms of government. My point was that if an American, in his fondness for democracy, rejects the monarchy as being inherently evil then he is running afoul of the Bible itself.

 

[Contarini]

Reverence and respect are two different things. I respect my parents, but I don’t reverence them like I do God. The flag, in and of itself, does not deserve respect, but the country and government it represents does.

Respect, not liturgical dulia in a place of Christian worship. There’s a difference. You can see it easily if you think about the original NT context.

Your original post conveyed anger at people who showed respect for the flag and country at church because it was out of place and hypocritical, however, numerous Scriptures instruct us to repsect our governments and leaders
Mat 22:21 They said, “Caesar’s.” Then he said to them, “Therefore render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.”

Indeed. Do you think Jesus was encouraging Jews to have Roman eagles set up in their sanctuaries?

Never mind that some scholars think Jesus meant something like “fling the idolatrous filth back where it belongs” and wasn’t talking about “respecting” the emperor at all.

This seems like a minor thing to get angry about, kind of nit-picking

You’re saying that the early Christian martyrs were nit-picking when they refused to perform the ritual gesture of reverence for the emperor that the government demanded (burning incense to the emperor’s guardian spirit/deity)? Ah, you say, but that involved “worshiping other gods.” Just what is a god and what is worship? Why, just because Americans don’t use the words “god” and “worship” to describe honoring the flag, do you assume that the reality involved must be different? Do you really think names are as all-important as that?

Explain to me what is different about the reality behind the two actions.

Note: I think there is possibly a difference. I would say that the reality behind the American flag is somewhat less directly opposed to the Christian faith than the reality behind the Roman Empire, which is why I don’t necessarily have a problem showing reverence to the flag outside a Christian liturgical context, though it does make me somewhat uncomfortable given how identity-defining an act it clearly is for Americans. I’m pushing you on this to make two points:

1. The Scriptural passages you cite cannot possibly support the liturgical veneration of national symbols, because they were written about a government authority to whose symbols Christians steadfastly refused such reverence at the cost of their own blood. Whatever differences may exist between the U.S. and the Roman Empire, they don’t affect the basic meaning of these passages. The N.T. references to civil authorities can’t possibly be enjoining any honor that you wouldn’t give to the idolatrous despotism of the Roman Principate as it was experienced by subject provinces.
2. Even if honoring the flag turns out not to be the same kind of act as burning incense to the genius of the emperor (as I said, I don’t think it is quite the same thing), the similarity is close enough that simply raising the question cannot possibly be nit-picking. In the same way, even though I don’t think that Catholics commit idolatry when they honor saints (in fact, I engage in such practices myself and thoroughly accept the Catholic position on this as on most points), I don’t think that Protestants are “nit-picking” when they raise the issue.

Idolatry is serious business.

Protestants don’t believe saints can intercede with God on their behalf, as such there is no reason to have icons about the sanctuary, there is no personal connection to saints. There is a personal connection to the flag.

And that condemns Protestantism more thoroughly than oceans of Catholic polemic could possibly do.

No personal connection to Christian saints who shed their blood for Jesus, but a personal connection to the symbol of a secular state that sheds blood for the sake of its own power?

I am tempted to say that no word weaker than “apostasy” could describe so utter an abandonment of historic Christianity.

We should be reminded often of the blessings God has showered on our country and the gratitude we owe Him for it.

Yes, but the gratitude is owed to God, not to the state.

I have my problems with Luther’s attitude to the state, but he got it right in the last stanza of “A Mighty Fortress”:

Das wort sie sollen lassen stahn
und kein danck dazu haben,

In the most common English translation:
“That Word, above all earthly powers
(No thanks to them) abideth.”

More literally: “They shall let the word stand and have no thanks for it.”

We should be reminded of the foundation of this country on Christian priniciples, especially now that the trend is to deny the faith of America’s founders.

In other words, not only don’t you care about orthodox Christianity, you don’t care about critical historical inquiry either. Nationalism overrides all, it seems.

Why? What moves you to such blatant disregard for the claims of both faith and reason?

We should remember that even with the many problems our country has, it is still the goal of thousands of immigrants every year, some at the risk of their lives. The difference is meaning, pictures of saints have no meaning to American Protestants, the flag does.

And American Protestants should repent for this. A more terrible condemnation of the entire religious culture of this country is hard to imagine.

Edwin

 

[Eutychus123]

Your distinction between respect and reverence seems to be at odds with the Catholic Encylopedia. You can pay reverence to all sorts of things including a country and its flag.

newadvent.org/cathen/07664a.htm

Are you accepting the Ecumenical Councils?

I can tell you that there is a belief in many protestant churches, and naturally among many protestants themselves, that images should not be used. In fact this is not new but an old heresy called Iconoclasm. Some protestants will at most have a cross, not a crucifix, in the church and that cross will not be prominent or large. For some the exclusion of images is more limited to the sanctuary itself.

That is not at all what I said. The people at my church show reverence to God. In fact they worship God. What I said was my church, like so many protestants churches, generally rejects the use of images in the sanctuary because they believe you are not to show reverence to images and yet shows reverence to a flag.

If you dont have a problem with showing reverence to holy images you are certainly on better ground than someone who does. But if you reject showing reverence to holy images then you most certainly should not show reverence in church to a secular image.

Dont sell the ancients short. Athenian democracy was 400 years prior to the first century. The Roman Republic, which predated the Empire into which Christ was born had a Senate and Consuls which were essentially like presidents.

My point had nothing to do with challenging the principle of respecting the civil authority. My point was that the Bible says to show that respect to kings. Therefore one can not reject the idea of a kingdom and its king being worthy forms of government. My point was that if an American, in his fondness for democracy, rejects the monarchy as being inherently evil then he is running afoul of the Bible itself.

 

[stevekehl]

Indeed. Do you think Jesus was encouraging Jews to have Roman eagles set up in their sanctuaries?

You answer your own question later when you say worshipping the Roman emperor was was worshippin other gods.

Never mind that some scholars think Jesus meant something like “fling the idolatrous filth back where it belongs” and wasn’t talking about “respecting” the emperor at all.

These scholars are wrong. The context clearly shows that Jesus was saying earthly governments should be respected and laws obeyed, but that worship (reverance) was reserved for the one true God. Jesus had a zealot among the twelve but I don’t recall Jesus sending Him out to resist Roman occupation. Jesus told his followers if a man compells you to go a mile go two miles instead.
Matt. 5:41 And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain.
This refers to the Roman law where a soldier could make a citizen carry his pack for a mile, Jesus says carry it two. Jesus said the centurian had more faith than any Jew He had met (Luke 7: 9) Jesus told Pilate that if His kingdom was to be of this world His followers would have fought to free Him John 18:36). If Jesus had wanted to fling the pagan filth out of Israel He could have. No, Jesus is talking about giving governments the respect they deserve,

You’re saying that the early Christian martyrs were nit-picking when they refused to perform the ritual gesture of reverence for the emperor that the government demanded (burning incense to the emperor’s guardian spirit/deity)? Ah, you say, but that involved “worshiping other gods.” Just what is a god and what is worship? Why, just because Americans don’t use the words “god” and “worship” to describe honoring the flag, do you assume that the reality involved must be different? Do you really think names are as all-important as that? Explain to me what is different about the reality behind the two actions.

.
The difference is clear and seems rather simple to see, to me. You say it yourself, burning incense for the emperor is an act of “reverence,” distinct from respect. Yes, names and words are really that important, they are how we distinguish one concept from another. If I were to introduce my brother as my wife I think a lot of people would consider that word replacement as pretty important. I don’t think anyone would confuse flag with God and pledge with worship, to prevent confusion these things were given names, like “pledge” and “flag.” Has anyone said if we don’t say the pledge to the American flag we are going to hell? I don’t think so.

Note: I think there is possibly a difference. I would say that the reality behind the American flag is somewhat less directly opposed to the Christian faith than the reality behind the Roman Empire, which is why I don’t necessarily have a problem showing reverence to the flag outside a Christian liturgical context, though it does make me somewhat uncomfortable given how identity-defining an act it clearly is for Americans. I’m pushing you on this to make two points:

1. The Scriptural passages you cite cannot possibly support the liturgical veneration of national symbols, because they were written about a government authority to whose symbols Christians steadfastly refused such reverence at the cost of their own blood. Whatever differences may exist between the U.S. and the Roman Empire, they don’t affect the basic meaning of these passages. The N.T. references to civil authorities can’t possibly be enjoining any honor that you wouldn’t give to the idolatrous despotism of the Roman Principate as it was experienced by subject provinces.

1. Even if honoring the flag turns out not to be the same kind of act as burning incense to the genius of the emperor (as I said, I don’t think it is quite the same thing), the similarity is close enough that simply raising the question cannot possibly be nit-picking. In the same way, even though I don’t think that Catholics commit idolatry when they honor saints (in fact, I engage in such practices myself and thoroughly accept the Catholic position on this as on most points), I don’t think that Protestants are “nit-picking” when they raise the issue.

1. I don’t now, nor have I ever, supported venerating a national symbol. I have been arguing the distinction between reverence and respect and Websters dictionary uses veneration to define reverence, so I agree, there is no liturgical backing for venerating national symbols. But again you confuse the deification of the emperor with respect for government authority. If Christians had rejected all symbols of Rome they would have refused to travel on Roman roads, refused to drink water from Roman aqueducts, refused to take Roman citizenship, refused to evangelize Roman officials, refused to respect the laws of the Romans. Paul mentions his Roman citizenship repeatedly and appealed his case to the emperor. God used the infrastructure and peace of the Roman empire to evangelize three continents in one lifetime. Christians didn’t worship the emperor because worship is owed only to God. So interpreting Jesus remark “Render to Ceasar what is Ceasar’s and to God what is God’s” as signifying that a good Christian can also be a good citizen is legitimate.
2. I do think Protestants who raise an issue about honoring saints are nit-picking. As I posted before, if someone feels a connection ot a particular saint and it helps bring them closer to God that’s fine. As long as they don’t pray to a saint, that is the same as praying to an emperor.
   The forum folks tell me my response is too long so I’ll continue on the next post.

 

[stevekehl]

No personal connection to Christian saints who shed their blood for Jesus, but a personal connection to the symbol of a secular state that sheds blood for the sake of its own power? I am tempted to say that no word weaker than “apostasy” could describe so utter an abandonment of historic Christianity.

Abandoning the history of Christianity is apostasy? I thought that was abandoning God’s Word. I’m surprised. From reading your post I thought you were smart, but now I see the typical “You’re going to hell because you don’t believe exactly what I believe” mentality that has caused so many problems through the centuries. When are you going to understand that governments are instruments of God’s will, even if they are athiestic or the theocratic rule of another religion. God is in control. And, as I said before, even though American history contains many mistakes and we currently have many problems, people are still coming here from all over the world for a better life.

Gratitude is owed to God, not to the state.

That’s what I said, we owe God a debt of gratitude for the blessings this country has received.

I have my problems with Luther’s attitude to the state, but he got it right in the last stanza of “A Mighty Fortress”:
In the most common English translation:
“That Word, above all earthly powers
(No thanks to them) abideth.”
More literally: “They shall let the word stand and have no thanks for it.”

I think Luther was being critical of Catholic monarchs when he wrote this song. Anyway, I live in Ohio, which was part of the Northwest Territory in the 18th century. In the territorial charter the government ordered schools to be established in order to promote good citizenship and the study of the bible (look it up). That was the true spirit our sountry was founded on, I see no problem remembering that or honoring the men and women who founded it.

In other words, not only don’t you care about orthodox Christianity, you don’t care about critical historical inquiry either. Nationalism overrides all, it seems. Why? What moves you to such blatant disregard for the claims of both faith and reason?

Wow, it’s like you’re psychic. Seriously, out of all the things I’ve said what makes you think I venerate country over God. I’ve said the exact opposite half a dozen times on this thread.
By the way, I love history and the degree to prove it.

(Protestants don’t have a personal connection with Catholic saints) And American Protestants should repent for this. A more terrible condemnation of the entire religious culture of this country is hard to imagine.

Personally I think a more terrible condemnation of our religious culture is that American Christians didn’t rise up and demand the impeachment of the Supreme Court after Roe v. Wade made abortion legal. You think this travesty is less important than my church not having statues around and asking saints to pray for us. I have living friends and family to pray for me and Jesus to intercede on my behalf.
1Timothy 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.

 

[ibneahmad]

Are these people worshiping the US flag since by their own beliefs they claim showing devotion to anything physical (at least in church) is not worshiping God? How is this not a great hypocrisy? Can anyone justify this devotion to the flag, in a church?

I think it shows that the Church is not to meddle in the temporal affairs of the state; the Church is to focus on the ethical , moral and spiritual affairs of the humanity as did Jesus in his times.

 

[exnihilo]

The context clearly shows that Jesus was saying earthly governments should be respected and laws obeyed, but that worship (reverance) was reserved for the one true God. Jesus had a zealot among the twelve but I don’t recall Jesus sending Him out to resist Roman occupation. Jesus told his followers if a man compells you to go a mile go two miles instead.

This understanding would condemn most American Christians and their attitude towards the world. If Jesus meant that governments should be respected He did not say that only your government should be respected. So the American would have to respect the government of other people. This would mean our various wars against other governments would be immoral.

There are other understandings of this verse that are quite reasonable.

I don’t think anyone would confuse flag with God and pledge with worship, to prevent confusion these things were given names, like “pledge” and “flag.”

Many Protestants confuse statue or icon with God.

How often do we pledge allegiance to God? We say we believe in Him. We ask forgiveness. But other than baptismal or confirmation vows when do we pledge ourselves to God?

If Christians had rejected all symbols of Rome they would have refused to travel on Roman roads, refused to drink water from Roman aqueducts, refused to take Roman citizenship, refused to evangelize Roman officials, refused to respect the laws of the Romans.

I dont see how that follows. But we do need to consider what a symbol means. We need to consider what it is intended to mean.

That’s what I said, we owe God a debt of gratitude for the blessings this country has received.

I agree we are blessed in material ways. But the American attitude, and this may occur elsewhere I cant really say, seems to be one where we are particularly and uniquely blessed. We seem to almost wonder how anyone else could even be slightly proud of their homeland. That shows pride, a lack of humility.

In the territorial charter the government ordered schools to be established in order to promote good citizenship and the study of the bible (look it up). That was the true spirit our sountry was founded on, I see no problem remembering that or honoring the men and women who founded it.

The primary purpose of state schools was and is ‘good citizenship’. That means obedient and faithful citizens, that obedience being to the state. One must then hope that the country is promoting good. Given the current cultural state of America that seems like a laughable notion. And the government has ruled promoting the Bible or Christianity to be highly illegal. So whatever this country was it is not any longer.

Personally I think a more terrible condemnation of our religious culture is that American Christians didn’t rise up and demand the impeachment of the Supreme Court after Roe v. Wade made abortion legal. You think this travesty is less important than my church not having statues around and asking saints to pray for us. I have living friends and family to pray for me and Jesus to intercede on my behalf.
1Timothy 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.

American Christians will put up with anything these days. There is no spirit in them at this time. It might be that many are not truly Christians or do not have a real, living faith. Mary is no more the giver of gifts than the US government is. If there is one mediator it is not Mary and not the US government or its flag.

 

[JonNC]

I usually abondon threads like this after a while, but I must respond here

=stevekehl;8227027] Protestants don’t believe saints can intercede with God on their behalf, as such there is no reason to have icons about the sanctuary, there is no personal connection to saints.

Lutherans certainly intercede for us, but in a general sense. They pray for us, the Church Militant. unceasingly.
No personal connection? If we have no connection with the greatest martyrs and saints in the Church history, then we are far worse off for it. FOr they are the bolded, greatest examples of the Christian faith and Godly life, other than Christ Himself. And the Blessed Virgin is the greatest of all. And personally, as a prostate cancer survivor, I have quite a close personal link to St. Peregrine.

The difference is meaning, pictures of saints have no meaning to American Protestants, the flag does

I assume you are speaking for yourself.

Jon

 

[stevekehl]

This understanding would condemn most American Christians and their attitude towards the world. If Jesus meant that governments should be respected He did not say that only your government should be respected. So the American would have to respect the government of other people. This would mean our various wars against other governments would be immoral.

There are other understandings of this verse that are quite reasonable.

Many Protestants confuse statue or icon with God.

How often do we pledge allegiance to God? We say we believe in Him. We ask forgiveness. But other than baptismal or confirmation vows when do we pledge ourselves to God?

I dont see how that follows. But we do need to consider what a symbol means. We need to consider what it is intended to mean.

I agree we are blessed in material ways. But the American attitude, and this may occur elsewhere I cant really say, seems to be one where we are particularly and uniquely blessed. We seem to almost wonder how anyone else could even be slightly proud of their homeland. That shows pride, a lack of humility.

The primary purpose of state schools was and is ‘good citizenship’. That means obedient and faithful citizens, that obedience being to the state. One must then hope that the country is promoting good. Given the current cultural state of America that seems like a laughable notion. And the government has ruled promoting the Bible or Christianity to be highly illegal. So whatever this country was it is not any longer.

American Christians will put up with anything these days. There is no spirit in them at this time. It might be that many are not truly Christians or do not have a real, living faith. Mary is no more the giver of gifts than the US government is. If there is one mediator it is not Mary and not the US government or its flag.

 

[JonNC]

In a bit of a hurry yesterday, so a clarification - in red. Sorry.

I usually abondon threads like this after a while, but I must respond here

Lutherans certainly believe the saints intercede for us, but in a general sense. They pray for us, the Church Militant. unceasingly.
No personal connection? If we have no connection with the greatest martyrs and saints in the Church history, then we are far worse off for it. FOr they are the boldest, greatest examples of the Christian faith and Godly life, other than Christ Himself. And the Blessed Virgin is the greatest of all. And personally, as a prostate cancer survivor, I have quite a close personal link to St. Peregrine.

I assume you are speaking for yourself.

Jon

 

[JHow]

I just wanted to comment on one tiny bit of the original post: that is, was it really reverence for the flag that got everyone to quiet down or was it rather the playing of the national anthem? Would things have been different if a hymn had been begun? How else does anyone react to the national anthem, but to get quiet and put your hand on your heart? Are the people at baseball games also worshiping the flag?

Also, I have noticed, in my parish, that patriotic hymns get quite a few more participants than the average oregon-catholic-press standard hymns. “Eternal Father, Strong to Save”, America the Beautiful"…etc…

Also, no one seems to mind the large “Regina Poloniae” icon of Our Lady of Czestochowa (as well as white eagle) that adorns this church that I sometimes attend:

polskaparafiala.org/index.html

One last thought…in the deep South one really should be glad the flag the Southerners have in their church is not the “stars and bars”. Just sayin…

I don’t see it’s fair to say Protestants worhip the flag.

 

[hosemonkey]

I do not “worship” my flag. I highly respect and venerate my flag because it is the symbol of everything good that this great nation stands for. Great deeds have been accomplished under it’s aegis, and sadly, some very bad ones, as well. But to me, as a veteran of combat in my country’s wars and one who has been wounded under that banner, it is a memorial and a reminder of all my comrades living and dead that have gone before under that same banner to defend the freedoms and defend the rights of the citizens of this great country. It is only a piece of cloth, but it is weighted down with the hopes and dreams of millions of people, it bears the freight of suffering and sacrifice, it protects the right to worship, it stands for what much of the population of this world does not enjoy, it stands for Freedom. Why do so many want to come here? Why do so many risk life and limb to find sanctuary here? That flag is a beacon. I do not “worship” my flag, but I have been willing to give up my life for it. Not for that “piece of cloth”, but for what it represents. Just my two centavos.

 

[exnihilo]

I just wanted to comment on one tiny bit of the original post: that is, was it really reverence for the flag that got everyone to quiet down or was it rather the playing of the national anthem? Would things have been different if a hymn had been begun?

Hymns were played before and after. They were talking before. They were talking after. That is what made this so disturbing to me.

How else does anyone react to the national anthem, but to get quiet and put your hand on your heart? Are the people at baseball games also worshiping the flag?

I think it is largely an unthoughtful reaction for many. Something more appropriate in a church would be at the name of Jesus Christ every knee bow and every tongue confess. In my church, and no doubt many, many others, there is nothing sacred that causes any genuflection save the flag.

The claim I am making regarding worship is only for people who say a church should not have images in it because image worship is bad. There seems to be for many such people this singular exception. Someone who venerates sacred images and genuflects before them would not be logically inconsistent in doing this to the flag.

One last thought…in the deep South one really should be glad the flag the Southerners have in their church is not the “stars and bars”. Just sayin…

The particularly strong reverence Southerners show for the US flag has always baffled me since we suffered a terrible war and occupation under it. If you dont care for the flags of the South have no fear. Many, many churches have American flags and I’ve yet to see a Confederate flag of any kind. I have however seen some Israeli flags along with the US and Christian flags. That is really bizarre to me.

 

[stevekehl]

I tried to repond to this post the other day and for some reason what I wrote got erased

This understanding would condemn most American Christians and their attitude towards the world. If Jesus meant that governments should be respected He did not say that only your government should be respected. So the American would have to respect the government of other people. This would mean our various wars against other governments would be immoral.

Peter and Paul both wrote to respect earthly authority, but not all earthly authorities. American has a pretty good record of only going to war after they have been attacked or the national soveriegnty violated. If you’d like a list of America’s wars and their causes I’ll list them for you. Aaerica is also very repsectful of foreign governments. Do you know how many millions of dollars UN diplomats owe in traffic violations and unpaid rent, but the government lets it slide.

There are other understandings of this verse that are quite reasonable.

Let me hear a couple.

Many Protestants confuse statue or icon with God.

We know the difference, that’s why we don’t have any around.

How often do we pledge allegiance to God? We say we believe in Him. We ask forgiveness. But other than baptismal or confirmation vows when do we pledge ourselves to God

?
We pledge our allegiance to God when we witness to others, when we act charitably, when we resist temptation, when we serve our congregation, when we pray for those in need, when we pray with our family before eating at a restaurant. Romans 12:1 says we should present our bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and pleasing to God, this is true worship.

I agree we are blessed in material ways. But the American attitude, and this may occur elsewhere I cant really say, seems to be one where we are particularly and uniquely blessed. We seem to almost wonder how anyone else could even be slightly proud of their homeland. That shows pride, a lack of humility.

It seems from this that you have a problem with America and, by extension, showing repsect for the flag that represents this country.

The primary purpose of state schools was and is ‘good citizenship’. That means obedient and faithful citizens, that obedience being to the state. One must then hope that the country is promoting good. Given the current cultural state of America that seems like a laughable notion. And the government has ruled promoting the Bible or Christianity to be highly illegal. So whatever this country was it is not any longer.

No country is as it was. I think you forget how generous Americans are when people are in need. Remember all the money raised after 9/11, and after the trunami in Asia, and after Katrina (in addition, thousands of people volunteered their time to help in the clean up). Americans have a lot of good in their hearts, they just need to be part of something important, something bigger than themselves, to bring it out. That used to be their local church, and can be again if we quit bickering amongst ourselves and worked together.

American Christians will put up with anything these days. There is no spirit in them at this time. It might be that many are not truly Christians or do not have a real, living faith. Mary is no more the giver of gifts than the US government is. If there is one mediator it is not Mary and not the US government or its flag.

I agree with you on this. I would say if they had a living faith they would see beyond unimportant opinions to what is truly important, Jesus, the only mediator between God and man. Anyone who says different is wrong.

 

[Contarini]

You answer your own question later when you say worshipping the Roman emperor was was worshippin other gods.

No, I said that you might make this objection, and I challenged you to define what a “god” is.

These scholars are wrong.

Just because you say so? Look, without disrespect, if it comes to trusting you or N. T. Wright (one of the scholars who says this), I think I’m going to go with the person whose learning and orthodoxy I have strong reasons to respect, and not with some guy on the Internet about whom I know nothing. Also, what I know of the historical context leads me to think that he’s probably right.

The context clearly shows that Jesus was saying earthly governments should be respected and laws obeyed

How does it show this?

but that worship (reverance) was reserved for the one true God. Jesus had a zealot among the twelve but I don’t recall Jesus sending Him out to resist Roman occupation. Jesus told his followers if a man compells you to go a mile go two miles instead.
Matt. 5:41 And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain.
This refers to the Roman law where a soldier could make a citizen carry his pack for a mile, Jesus says carry it two.

Yes, and that’s a great example of nonviolent resistance, showing that the follower of Jesus is acting out of love for the neighbor and obedience to Jesus, and not out of obedience to the Roman state. The soldier can’t complain, because you’re doing something nice for him and going beyond what the law commands, but you’re effectively nullifying the authority of Roman law by making it clear that Roman law doesn’t regulate your actions–Jesus’ teachings do.

As Wright says, whenever the NT says “Jesus is Lord,” it’s implicitly saying “and Caesar isn’t.” The basic titles for Jesus–“Kurios” and “soter” (Lord and savior)–were imperial titles. American evangelicals have ripped the spine out of Christianity by making “accepting Jesus as Lord and savior” an act that is purely about having your individual sins forgiven, and not about transferring your loyalty from the powers of this age to the Kingdom that has come near in the person of Jesus.

Jesus said the centurian had more faith than any Jew He had met (Luke 7: 9) Jesus told Pilate that if His kingdom was to be of this world His followers would have fought to free Him John 18:36). If Jesus had wanted to fling the pagan filth out of Israel He could have.

But because Jesus’ kingdom was not from this world (that’s the best way to translate the preposition there–“of” is misleading because it can be misinterpreted as “in”), He didn’t use the methods of this world to resist pagan tyranny. You are making the false assumption that that means He didn’t resist it.

The praise for the centurion is noteworthy precisely because the centurion isn’t someone you’d expect to show such virtue. The story loses its point if you start from the assumption that being a Roman centurion was just fine in the first place.

No, Jesus is talking about giving governments the respect they deserve

So you say. But your “evidence” shows only that Jesus used nonviolent means and that He showed love to Roman soldiers as individuals.

.
The difference is clear and seems rather simple to see, to me. You say it yourself, burning incense for the emperor is an act of “reverence,” distinct from respect.

No, I didn’t say anything about how to distinguish “reverence” from “respect.” “Reverence” is obviously stronger, and “respect” could simply be negative. In other words, I can “respect” the American flag by not trampling on it. But if I put my hand over my heart and face it while saying the Pledge of Allegiance, I’m clearly engaging in an act of “reverence.”

I think there is a further difference, but I find it hard to define. I think that in practice it explains why I don’t necessarily mind the basic gestures of respect for the flag, etc. (in a context other than that of Christian worship), but I find obtrusive and intense displays of such respect to be crossing a line. But I find it hard to define the distinction clearly. I certainly don’t think you have done so.

Yes, names and words are really that important, they are how we distinguish one concept from another. If I were to introduce my brother as my wife I think a lot of people would consider that word replacement as pretty important.

Right. I wasn’t saying names were totally unimportant, only that they weren’t “all-important.”

Would it be OK for me to kill an animal in front of a statue of a man with a fish’s tail, and burn part of the animal on a square structure at the feet of the statue, as long as I didn’t call the fish-tailed dude a “god” and didn’t call what I was doing “sacrifice”?

My point is that if you engage in actions that function in ways highly similar to the way “burning incense to the genius of the emperor” functioned in the Roman Empire, then you need to be able to show how what you are doing is different, and just saying “it’s only respect and I don’t think America is a god” isn’t good enough.

 

[Contarini]

I don’t think anyone would confuse flag with God and pledge with worship,

Yes, I think people do this all the time. More precisely, I think they confuse the American nation with God.

When you say “we should be thankful to America for the freedom that we have”;
When you say, as another poster has done on this forum, “I can no more imagine myself not being American than I can not being Christian”;
When people cite polls showing that Muslims think it more important to be Muslim than to be American as if these results said something shocking about Islam instead of something shocking about the American Christians who don’t hold their religion to be more important than their nationality;

then yes, I think the nation is being very much confused with God.

I find it hard to understand how one can observe American nationalism in action and not see that it occupies the same emotional and social “space” as religion, that it functions similarly, and that it impinges on people’s Christianity insofar as they modify their Christian principles when those conflict with their loyalty to the nation.

I recognize that you and many others don’t see this–I think it’s because you just take nationalism for granted and never sit back and think about it. I’m trying to jolt folks in this thread into doing just that.

to prevent confusion these things were given names, like “pledge” and “flag.”

But linguistic distinctions can sometimes confuse. For instance, many prolife folks are rightly suspicious of the habit of referring to the child before birth as a “fetus,” because that linguistic usage suggests to people that precisely and only at birth does what has been in the mother’s womb become a child (even though it seems pretty much impossible for “pro-choicers” to make a substantive argument supporting this position). It would be viciously frivolous to argue that simply because people commonly say “fetus” and not “child,” therefore the fetus is not a child.

Has anyone said if we don’t say the pledge to the American flag we are going to hell?

Indeed. The nationalistic equivalent of damnation happens in this life. If you want to know what it looks like in some of its nastier forms, look at the pictures from Abu Ghraib or Hiroshima.

1. I don’t now, nor have I ever, supported venerating a national symbol. I have been arguing the distinction between reverence and respect and Websters dictionary uses veneration to define reverence, so I agree, there is no liturgical backing for venerating national symbols.

You haven’t explained the difference, actually. Facing the flag and putting your hand over your heart is reverence. I’m pushing the ritual issue because that’s where the similarity is most obvious, but also because the rituals clearly have very deep roots, as you can see when people talk about how important it is to honor the flag because it’s the symbol of freedom, or speak with vitriol and contempt about people who show insufficient reverence and tell them that they should go live in some less-favored country (where, of course, they can be conveniently bombed if the “god” of America demands such a human sacrifice).

But again you confuse the deification of the emperor with respect for government authority.

No, I don’t. I clearly distinguish the two, and I say that early Christians drew the line precisely at liturgical honor/respect/veneration.

If Christians had rejected all symbols of Rome they would have refused to travel on Roman roads, refused to drink water from Roman aqueducts, refused to take Roman citizenship, refused to evangelize Roman officials, refused to respect the laws of the Romans.

And of course, I’m not suggesting that Christians should “reject national symbols” today in any of those ways–except where specific laws contradict God’s law, of course.

Christians were accused of being ungrateful and anti-social parasites precisely because they participated in Roman society in the ways you mention while refusing to participate in the liturgical actions that affirmed their fundamental and ultimate loyalty to the Empire. In the same way, Christians (and others) today who reject the liturgical symbols of patriotism and the attitudes that go with them are accused of being ungrateful and anti-social parasites who ought to go live in some country where they lack “freedom.”

Paul mentions his Roman citizenship repeatedly and appealed his case to the emperor.

Indeed.

God used the infrastructure and peace of the Roman empire to evangelize three continents in one lifetime. Christians didn’t worship the emperor because worship is owed only to God. So interpreting Jesus remark “Render to Ceasar what is Ceasar’s and to God what is God’s” as signifying that a good Christian can also be a good citizen is legitimate.

Well, I think that begs the question, because “being a good citizen” can mean a lot of things to a lot of people.

1. I do think Protestants who raise an issue about honoring saints are nit-picking. As I posted before, if someone feels a connection ot a particular saint and it helps bring them closer to God that’s fine. As long as they don’t pray to a saint, that is the same as praying to an emperor.

And yet you think this even though the word “saint” is not the same as the word “emperor”!

I think you are completely wrong here. I don’t think a saint is remotely the same thing as an emperor. On the other hand, I think that the abstract, idealized concept that Americans are venerating when they honor the flag and engage in other acts of patriotism is functionally very close to what Romans meant by the “genius of the emperor.” I am happy to discuss the specifics of this further if you wish to do so.

In Christ,

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Abandoning the history of Christianity is apostasy? I thought that was abandoning God’s Word.

And God’s Word comes to us through Tradition as well as through Scripture.

Yes, a version of Christianity that fundamentally breaks with historic Christianity is apostate. We can argue over just how big a break is “fundamental,” but if you can honestly say that the flag means more to you than ancient saints do, then I think we’re talking about a pretty fundamental break.

I’m surprised. From reading your post I thought you were smart, but now I see the typical “You’re going to hell because you don’t believe exactly what I believe”

Since I have never suggested that you are going to hell, nor are we talking about believing “exactly what I believe,” this is an unfair and unreasonable construction on what I’m saying. You seem to think this issue is trivial. I don’t. There are probably points that you think are really important that I think are trivial.

mentality that has caused so many problems through the centuries.

A version of Christianity that is no longer “causing problems” for the powers of this world is a version that has lost its saltiness.

When are you going to understand that governments are instruments of God’s will, even if they are athiestic or the theocratic rule of another religion.

They are instruments of God’s providence, yes. I’m not sure how that supports your point.

God is in control. And, as I said before, even though American history contains many mistakes and we currently have many problems, people are still coming here from all over the world for a better life.

You segue immediately from an argument about all governments without distinction to a claim about America in particular. One part of the quotation above is irrelevant to the present discussion. Either you are saying that Americans should honor the flag in precisely the same way as Germans should have honored the Nazi flag in 1940, or you aren’t. If you aren’t, then the first part of the argument is irrelevant. If you are, then pointing out the specific virtues of America and the many ways in which America today is vastly different from Germany in 1940 is irrelevant.

That’s what I said, we owe God a debt of gratitude for the blessings this country has received.

But honoring the flag isn’t an appropriate way to show that gratitude. Praying a prayer of thanksgiving to God is the appropriate way to do that.

I think Luther was being critical of Catholic monarchs when he wrote this song.

I grant you that it’s a cryptic line.

Personally I think a more terrible condemnation of our religious culture is that American Christians didn’t rise up and demand the impeachment of the Supreme Court after Roe v. Wade made abortion legal.

Well, I’m not sure that calling for impeachment would have been the best approach (as you pointed out, the New Testament never calls on Christians to rise up against governments even when they are ungodly), but certainly it’s a terrible condemnation that Protestants didn’t respond more strongly and uniformly. And you know why they didn’t? Because they thought abortion was a “Catholic issue” and because centuries of Protestant misreading of Romans 13 had led them to accept whatever the government did as right and just.

You think this travesty is less important than my church not having statues around and asking saints to pray for us.

No, but I think that the widespread acceptance of abortion post-Roe is at least partially due to an idolatrous misinterpretation of what respect for government means.

Haven’t you ever encountered the argument that abortion can’t be murder because the law doesn’t say it is? I have.

Edwin

 

[GKC]

Yes, I think people do this all the time. More precisely, I think they confuse the American nation with God.

When you say “we should be thankful to America for the freedom that we have”;
When you say, as another poster has done on this forum, “I can no more imagine myself not being American than I can not being Christian”;
When people cite polls showing that Muslims think it more important to be Muslim than to be American as if these results said something shocking about Islam instead of something shocking about the American Christians who don’t hold their religion to be more important than their nationality;

then yes, I think the nation is being very much confused with God.

I find it hard to understand how one can observe American nationalism in action and not see that it occupies the same emotional and social “space” as religion, that it functions similarly, and that it impinges on people’s Christianity insofar as they modify their Christian principles when those conflict with their loyalty to the nation.

I recognize that you and many others don’t see this–I think it’s because you just take nationalism for granted and never sit back and think about it. I’m trying to jolt folks in this thread into doing just that.

But linguistic distinctions can sometimes confuse. For instance, many prolife folks are rightly suspicious of the habit of referring to the child before birth as a “fetus,” because that linguistic usage suggests to people that precisely and only at birth does what has been in the mother’s womb become a child (even though it seems pretty much impossible for “pro-choicers” to make a substantive argument supporting this position). It would be viciously frivolous to argue that simply because people commonly say “fetus” and not “child,” therefore the fetus is not a child.

Indeed. The nationalistic equivalent of damnation happens in this life. If you want to know what it looks like in some of its nastier forms, look at the pictures from Abu Ghraib or Hiroshima.

You haven’t explained the difference, actually. Facing the flag and putting your hand over your heart is reverence. I’m pushing the ritual issue because that’s where the similarity is most obvious, but also because the rituals clearly have very deep roots, as you can see when people talk about how important it is to honor the flag because it’s the symbol of freedom, or speak with vitriol and contempt about people who show insufficient reverence and tell them that they should go live in some less-favored country (where, of course, they can be conveniently bombed if the “god” of America demands such a human sacrifice).

No, I don’t. I clearly distinguish the two, and I say that early Christians drew the line precisely at liturgical honor/respect/veneration.

And of course, I’m not suggesting that Christians should “reject national symbols” today in any of those ways–except where specific laws contradict God’s law, of course.

Christians were accused of being ungrateful and anti-social parasites precisely because they participated in Roman society in the ways you mention while refusing to participate in the liturgical actions that affirmed their fundamental and ultimate loyalty to the Empire. In the same way, Christians (and others) today who reject the liturgical symbols of patriotism and the attitudes that go with them are accused of being ungrateful and anti-social parasites who ought to go live in some country where they lack “freedom.”

Indeed.

Well, I think that begs the question, because “being a good citizen” can mean a lot of things to a lot of people.

And yet you think this even though the word “saint” is not the same as the word “emperor”!

I think you are completely wrong here. I don’t think a saint is remotely the same thing as an emperor. On the other hand, I think that the abstract, idealized concept that Americans are venerating when they honor the flag and engage in other acts of patriotism is functionally very close to what Romans meant by the “genius of the emperor.” I am happy to discuss the specifics of this further if you wish to do so.

In Christ,

Edwin

I do not confuse the nation with God. Nor did I, in the 20 years I wore the country’s uniform. Do you really think I do not understand nationalism? I understand what the kokutai meant. That’s nationalism

I do not confuse the secular “rubrics” of how one respects the symbols of the nation, with any form of dulia/ hyper dulia/, latria.. The flag is not like unto the three sacred symbols of Yamato.Standing for the national anthem, saluting the flag as is considered appropriate, is respect and it is not reverence. As I used to say, when extreme protestants (you know the sort) would accuse me of “worshipping” a crucifix, or an image, you are not plugged into my neural circuits. If I say I am not reverencing the flag, trust me. I am not reverencing the flag. Or what it stands for. And the same is true if I am doing it in a nave, or a field. A combat mass held over the hood of a Jeep, on Okinawa, is worship. Saluting the flag at a raising of the colors in the same spot, is not.

As to Hiroshima, you know what I think of what is, in my mind, an intensely immoral willingness to condemn people to death. I hope that I am through with that subject for a year, August now being over. Bought 4 new books on the topic this month. But if you insist, I will engage on the history of avoided deaths. As Frank said, it is difficult to get people to have sympathy for them. They have no pictures, because they did not die in the continued war. Because of the bombs.

You generalize overly much.

GKC

 

[JHow]

…The particularly strong reverence Southerners show for the US flag has always baffled me since we suffered a terrible war and occupation under it. If you dont care for the flags of the South have no fear. Many, many churches have American flags and I’ve yet to see a Confederate flag of any kind. I have however seen some Israeli flags along with the US and Christian flags. That is really bizarre to me.

It’s not a matter of disliking southern flags - I grew up in Virginia. I have also noticed the same love of the US flag among Southerners that you mention, as well as a certain fondness for the CSA battle flag, which is what I was poking fun at in my comment: be glad that it is the US flag that is displayed in a southern church.

After reading Contarini’s various comments along the way, I think that part of the issue is that, yes, people are not always respectful of God and religion as they should be. For many of the posters the flag is most directly related to military service, which is still respected in our society. Perhaps, though, the challenge is not to respect military service less, but respect God more. Heck, men used to even tip their hats to ladies on the street (a form of salute), if we want to talk about signs of repect.

You have only to walk outside that southern church into the nearby cementery (usually there is one) to be reminded of why people are respectful of military service. There you will find govt.-issue graves from vietnam, korea, ww2 - even the state-issued CSA graves, many from the same families. The serious nature and sometime consequences of military service cannot be denied - but this is not always true of american religious experience. We are all aware of the dents to religion’s reputation in America (I will only bring up a few generic examples, because I don’t want anyone to think I see this as a protestant-only problem, by any means), from the hucksterism of TV pastors, to sexual abuse scandals, to poor instruction (catechesis), to weak families.