![Secular activist and opponent of the "Under God" clause, Michael Newdow](http://cdn2-b.examiner.com/sites/default/files/styles/large_lightbox/hash/d2/31/d2313c4e5b856f891ec485257567b69b.jpg "Secular activist and opponent of the "Under God" clause, Michael Newdow")
The phrase "under God", which was added to the Pledge of Allegiance during the Cold War, in order to set America apart from "godless Communists", was ruled as not violating the Establishment Clause of the Constitution by San Francisco's 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.
Atheist activist Michael Newdow has been trying to get the phrase removed from the Pledge for nearly a decade because he claims it infringes on his religious (or in his case, nonreligioius) beliefs.
The full story can be found here.
While I have no problem with the phrase staying in the Pledge, as a Biblical teacher I am disturbed by the zeal with which many people speak about displays of civil religion remaining in the public sphere.
The argument that America is a "Christian" (or even "Judeo-Christian") nation founded upon Biblical principals is an ongoing one, with quotes from founding fathers strung together by both sides in proof-texting fashion. It's an argument that I do not wish to get into at this point other than to note that the very same "Godly" founders of this nation seemed to have no problem with genocidal removal of Native Americans, Colonial slave-trading and various other less-than-Christian national practices.
What bothers me more than the removal of public displays of vague recognition of a nameless "God" is the belief that such displays in any way contribute to making this country more righteous in God's eyes. The God of the Bible was NEVER concerned with outward displays of religious observance...even when it was specifically directed towards Him! Listen to the words He spoke to His own Covenant People regarding their public displays of religion through a politically insignificant farmer named Amos:
"I absolutely despise your festivals!
I get no pleasure from your religious assemblies!
Even if you offer me burnt and grain offerings, I will not be satisfied;
I will not look with favor on your peace offerings of fattened calves.
Take away from me your noisy songs;
I don't want to hear the music of your stringed instruments.
Justice must flow like torrents of water,
righteous actions like a stream that never dries up."
(Amos 8:21-24)
The people of Israel thought that their expressions of religious worship was what kept them blessed by God. They were 100% wrong. This was ISRAEL! God's Covenant People! If God didn't look favorably upon their civil religious displays, what makes us think America--who are not, and have never been, God's Covenant nation--will be any more godly so long as public school students recite a pledge of allegiance to a flag belonging to a country that nominally acknowledges one of the most basic philosophical truths (i.e. the existence of a Supreme Being)?
And if we think Amos was just an anomaly in the history of God's people and their national well-being, listen to the most prolific of Israel's prophets, Isaiah:
"Of what importance to me are your many sacrifices?"
says the LORD.
"I am stuffed with burnt sacrifices of rams and the fat from steers.
The blood of bulls, lambs, and goats I do not want.
When you enter my presence, do you actually think I want this–
animals trampling on my courtyards?
Do not bring any more meaningless offerings;
I consider your incense detestable!
You observe new moon festivals, Sabbaths, and convocations,
but I cannot tolerate sin-stained celebrations!
I hate your new moon festivals and assemblies;
they are a burden that I am tired of carrying.
When you spread out your hands in prayer, I look the other way;
when you offer your many prayers, I do not listen,
because your hands are covered with blood.
Wash!
Cleanse yourselves!
Remove your sinful deeds from my sight.
Stop sinning!
Learn to do what is right!
Promote justice!
Give the oppressed reason to celebrate!
Take up the cause of the orphan!
Defend the rights of the widow!"
(Isaiah 1:14-17)
What we see throughout the Bible is that God is FAR less concerned with public displays of religion than He is with actual inward faithfulness among His Covenant People. The danger with civil religion is that it lures people into believing that as long as America gives lip service to the concept of a non-specific "God" in whom the nation is said to "trust" or be "under", the country will be blessed...usually in regards to material wealth and safety!
But the Scriptures--both Old and New Testaments--answer with a resounding "NO!" God allowed His very own Temple to be utterly demolished and His Covenant people exiled from their land...even as they still carried on religious activities in it! And He didn't allow it to happen once; He allowed it to happen twice--once at the hands of Babylon and once at the hands of Rome.
So my questions to my fellow brothers and sisters in Christ who get so alarmed when cherished public religious displays are threatened would be:
- Can you find anywhere in Scripture where God promises to bless a nation that acknowledges His existence with prosperity and peace?
- Does anything in Scripture teach that requiring recitation of words that speak of a non-specific "God" on the part of school children and public officials is somehow indicative of actual righteousness?
- Does Scripture ever put forth the idea that followers of Jesus are to seek to get their neighbors who are not Jesus-followers to recognize His Lordship through civil or legislative means?
Yet these seem to be ideas that many traditionalists in America presuppose. Oh that Jesus would come turn over some of our political tables and drive out some of our civil-religious livestock...
Does this mean that Scripture is actually on the side of those like Michael Newdow or Barry Lynn then??
Absolutely not.
What we see in the Bible is that YHWH, the One True God, is far above political and civil displays of pious traditionalism (though that doesn't mean He opposes them in and of themselves--a point that must be made clear!). He is a God who entered into human culture as a lowly peasant in a remote village and intentionally avoided taking sides with proponents of (as well as opponents of!) civil religion--preferring instead to spread His Kingdom through infiltrating and transforming the hearts, minds, and ultimately lives of people in every strata of culture and politics.
These transformed people would never need to fear cultural or civic opposition as a danger to His Kingdom...however, they would end up being tempted to use cultural and civic weapons to advance His Kingdom. And while He specifically refused to yield to such temptation, many of His followers would.
Thus, we find often ourselves drawn into "culture wars" that, at the heart of it all, have almost nothing to do with true faithfulness to God.
Comments
My beef has always been simple.
The argument (spin) for keeping it in is "we're not even specifically saying which G(g)od so it shouldn't offend anyone." (Except the atheist and polytheist) But if that's the case, then why keep it? They obviously don't care about which G(g)od we should establish as our founder, so just go back to the original pledge.
Interesting disquisition eloquently stated. It will be fascinating to hear how the "bang the God-drum loudly" crowd responds to it.
:)
Joe, I couldn't agree more. Well put. I personally don't care if it's in or out. I don't think it violates any religious establishment boundaries because it's so vague as to be pretty much philosophical rather than religious...which is why I don't really care if it's removed.
Hugh, I'm guessing many of my fellow Evangelicals will not be happy with my position...but many (I'd say most, even here in the Bible belt, but I couldn't provide more than anecdotal evidence of it) would agree.
Funny thing about being in the middle is that you're labeled a Religious Fundamentalist by those on the Left and and a Heretical Liberal by those on the Right. :)
I think this is really a non-issue of the first order. Does it ultimately matter whether or not we keep it in there? Yes and no. No, there is no practical benefit, no positive indoctrination, no great blessing that comes from chanting these words on a daily basis in our public schools. But, yes, when you change the terms of the discussion, you change the discussion itself. History does matter, and the historical roots of this nation do matter. No, we should not lionize the Founders for their accomplishments, but at the same time neither should we condemn them for their faults. They are human just as we are. But balance such as this is not easily attained or maintained in the public arena. It's an all or nothing game, for good or for ill. There are dangers in 'cultural godliness' just as there are dangers in 'cultural ungodliness' too. An equal case could be made for or against the persecution of Christians in America. Does that mean one should hope for it if one follows Jesus?
If we look back into history at the old and new testament...we see many examples of God correcting nations and/or countries. There are many examples of God's correction involving the destruction of the nation in question. My worry about the United States is....the type of false "lip service" our country gives God is generally looked at as being worse than being a country which doesn't believe in God at all. If our country continues in this direction without change, then we will be "corrected."
I should add that if I were to consider any outlook on the Pledge as biblical, I would say it would be the one that gets rid of the Pledge altogether. It was after all first conceived by a man that was a Christian socialist. Socialism's goal has always been to use the power of human government to bring society to a perpetual state of perfection, a goal that is impossible and equally as dangerous. Additionally, if we are going to make laundry lists of what God we are talking about when we say "under God" should we not also make such lists about what Christians mean when we say "I pledge allegiance"? After all, such words may carry equal inherent danger even if they are not as controversial. We ought to say what we mean and mean what we say (my apologies to Dr. Seuss). And we ought to choose our words carefully. I like the theological context here, and the points are well made, but the historical context is somewhat lacking.
I both agree and disagree. No, I do not think that having "God" in the pledge, on our money, or even in the school makes us a "godly" or "christian" nation. Nor do I think it entitles us to a particular "blessing" from God. So far, so good.
I do, however, think that these things have a *relative* importance for our nation. I think it is a sign of respect toward the founders of our country and the world view that they built it upon. Yes, they had their faults and blind spots - as do we. But they did a good job.
And I do feel that a culture that has a certain "acknowledgment" of God as seen in the Judeo-Christian ethic, tends to be more likely to have certain benefits that come from that generic "acknowledgment". Examples of this would be generally higher morals or even the protestant work ethic. Note that I say they "tend to be" - it is no guarantee. And it is more "fruit" of a certain life style rather than a "blessing" per se. Thanks for a good article.
I'm an evangelical in the "not really concerned if it stays or leaves" crowd. It's interesting that the "bang the God Drum" (thanks, Hugh) ;) folks don't ever seem to notice that all the "laws" God gave Israel - were FOR ISRAEL. For his covenant people. Israel was to be set apart so that the rest of the nations would see their relationship with God and want to follow God as well. God didn't say "force non-Israelites to follow me". Believers under the new covenant should do the same thing. If the Spirit moves you to display your love of God in a certain way - then do it - but don't force others. We usher people into covenant with God the same way now, as it's always been done...through displaying our relationship with God and loving others.
Amen my brother! Amen.
"God is FAR less concerned with public displays of religion than He is with actual inward faithfulness."
In "heathenspeak," we might say something similar, but without the paranormal references: "the truth is more important than being right. Or having clever sound bites." (As a minister, I'm sure you're required to say something like 'the truth is meaningless without gods,' or some such, but I won't tell anyone if you let it go this once.)
Nice article. Thanks.
Well said!
Thank you for finally putting this into words for me. :)
Yes, it really does matter because the goal of the atheists is to thwart all practice of faith, to run it out of the public square, to make it's expression unlawful. The very name of Jesus is physically painful to them because they are evil. The world is a battlefield. Take the battle to the enemy.
Steve,
Atheists are not the enemy. Scripture is clear that we do not fight against flesh and blood. The powers and principalities are the enemies and our battle plan is prayer and ongoing witness to the Resurrection of Jesus. Christians have NEVER needed the government to do this. The early church didn't need Jesus recognized by the Roman government in public festivals alongside the other gods in order to spread the Gospel.
The word, Yeheshua is symbolized in the Dollar regardless, if you know how to find it.
I prefer Jesus to the Demiurgic Saturnine deity "El" or "God" depicted in cannanite phallic form between two lions like most heraldry. Even Jefferson wouldn't put the OT in his bible.
All of this is stupid. No one should be forced to worship a flag (and idol) or pass loyalty or patriotism tests. No child should be forced to recite ANYTHING, patriotic or otherwise. And nationalism shouldn't be pushed as religion, anymore than God should be pushed as religion. Pledging allegiance to a flag is pretty moronic, when you think about it, about as dumb as swearing on a Bible, when Jesus specifically taught against oaths (and taught against national oaths as well). I think the entire pledge is unconstitutional, as is requiring anyone recite anything. Swearing (unbiblical) to God (even more unbiblical) and to a nation (horribly unbiblical) is just a terrible idea all around. I'd be put to death before I swore to a flag, just as early Christians would rather die than pledge allegiance to Caesar's image.
What always strikes me about Christian legislative attempts is that they *aren't* about bringing non-believers to Christ at all, but about making non-Christians act like Christians without the benefit of a relationship with God through Christ or the acting of the Holy Spirit. How many souls have been lost because they believed, based on their perceptions of legal efforts, that Heaven was about being good and they felt they were certainly good enough?
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!