Prevailing Winds "For the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is there is freedom . . ." 2 Cor. 3:17, TNIV

July 1, 2010

Pledging Not To Pledge

Filed under: Uncategorized — keelyem @ 2:18 pm

In almost 500 Prevailing Winds posts, I’m pretty sure I’ve mentioned this before, but it’s something I’d like to discuss again — at the risk of incurring the wrath of my conservative Christian friends and family members.

(Believe me, I don’t try to incur wrath. It just sort of happens; my only standard is that the subject that makes me an object of anger must be something of significance; I’m not real interested in having dear Aunt Clara angry with me because I dislike Southern Gospel . . . )

Anyway, it was probably 30-something years ago when I first decided not to recite, nor stand for the recitation of, the Pledge of Allegiance. I was “Christian-ish,” not Christian, then, but I had an instinctive belief that the three reasons given us in school for why we ought to recite the Pledge were illegitimate. I didn’t care that “everyone was supposed to,” I was offended at the idea that something called “a Pledge” was dismissed as “just words,” a rote mumbling of a chain of words without meaning or conviction, and I knew then that while I love my country, there might come a time some day when I possibly would have to go against something it required of me. This was during Watergate, when it was clear that government was not only terribly fallible, but much more corrupt than most of us had believed possible.

After becoming a Christian in 1981, though, it became clear to me that I could never pledge allegiance to anything or anyone other than the Lord Jesus, and I was more dismayed than puzzled at the enthusiasm with which other Christians embraced the Pledge — and surprised at the anger my refusal to do so engendered in them. We all, as Christians, pledge “allegiance” to all sorts of things in life, they explained, like promising to obey traffic laws when we get our drivers’ licenses, or pledging fidelity to our spouses in our marriage ceremonies. The Pledge of Allegiance was no different, they argued, and was at least as important as any other civic promises we make, because the U.S. is clearly a nation “founded by God,” a sovereign entity unlike any other in history. I hear those same arguments today. They’re just as hollow now as they were then.

When I obtain my drivers’ license, I indicate that I receive the license, and the permission to drive it gives me, under the condition that I obey traffic laws and meet certain criteria — things involving age, eyesight, and ability. That’s not only a reasonable, but an absolutely necessary, aspect of living in society; we don’t want people to get drivers’ licenses with the same ease with which they buy a pack of gum, because the danger of gum “in the wrong hands” is far less than that of a car “in the wrong hands.” The State, then, is not asking for, and certainly not requiring, any allegiance from me other than my allegiance to law and order — in other words, my appropriate intention to obey the laws set before me, as long as they don’t contradict with the law of God. But God requires of me that I obey the law, and my announced intention to do so when I get my license is entirely consistent with my ultimate and final allegiance to God.

It’s the same idea in marriage. When Jeff and I got married almost 26 years ago, we pledged to one another our faithfulness, and any break from that would demonstrate a break from my intention to fulfill my marital vows — vows that come to us from God, and vows whose fulfillment, again, is part of my allegiance to my God. But my “I do” doesn’t in any way allow me to blindly and without regard follow my husband, even if acquiescing to his wishes would violate God’s law or will for my life. So I pledge fidelity to my marriage as part of my unwavering devotion to God and my unwavering devotion to living with my husband in ways that honor the Divine intent for marriage. Where following Jeff would cause me to sin, or vice-versa, I must turn away. My allegiance to my marriage is always in accord to God’s plan for marriage, and always submitted to my commitment to God.

But “pledging allegiance” to this or any other country, or any organization, community, church, or society, is entirely inappropriate for the believer. First, it requires, if the words are taken seriously, a promise of fidelity no one nor anything can ever rightfully extract from me; it gives the State carte blanche to demand of me things that I can’t do in righteousness, and God’s insistence that we respect government is not, cannot be, the same thing as pledging allegiance to that government. (And if the words aren’t taken seriously, shame on those who recite them anyway. Words mean something, and if your “yes” should mean “yes” and your “no” is to mean “no,” then your utterance of the Pledge better be as conscious and serious than your simple “yes” and “no.”)

“Allegiance” is not “preference for,” “probable obedience to,” or “reasonable certainty of” the State. The word means turning my heart toward, proclaiming obedience to, and placing the country above competing interests. God is a competing interest; everything has to fall in place below my relationship with my Savior.

Second, the idea of pledging allegiance to the U.S. is an idea so vague that abuse on the part of the State isn’t only possible, but probable. A gullible, fearful people can be made to believe anything the State asks them to believe, and people will then act on what they believe to be true in the ways those who convinced them in the first place prescribe. It’s happened before — witness the re-election of George W. Bush — and it continues every time the people demonstrate mindless patriotism and unthinking embrace of what “the experts” and “the leaders” say. It’s a wide-open invitation to abuse of power and sin against the Omnipotent One, and it’s as dangerous to say it without really thinking about it as it is to say the words and vehemently believe that every one of them is right — and righteous.

There are those who have and will continue to cast their lot with the State, or with their race, or with their money. They’ve pledged their allegiance to all but God. I’ve chosen, though, by the grace of the Holy Spirit, to cast my lot with Christ. He is not the State and the State is not him. Therefore, the Pledge of Allegiance from my lips would be a lie. God forbids me to lie, and so regarding the Pledge, I can’t. And so I haven’t, and I won’t. I wish that were a conviction the sincere Pledge-reciting believers I know were guided into.

4 Comments »

  1. I’d say I agree with you in not reciting the Pledge for reasons of conscience. Having been raised in a Protestant church, it is somewhat curious that the average citizen (let us assume one who is both fairly religious and patriotic) adopts a more reverent physical posture when he or she says the pledge (hats off, hand over heart, etc.) than when confessing the Apostle’s Creed. Of course, what I submit here isn’t definitive proof that the Pledge is some sort of gross idolatry (though its author did have a nationalist/socialist streak). My firm belief though, that to insinuate that someone who refrains from reciting the Pledge is because of their abstinence guilty of poor citizenship is patent stupidity.

    Nice to have found your blog. I grew up in Moscow and miss it.

    -Thomas Banks-

    Comment by Anonymous — July 1, 2010 @ 8:23 pm

  2. You said: “Believe me, I don’t try to incur wrath. It just sort of happens; my only standard is that the subject that makes me an object of anger must be something of significance; I’m not real interested in having dear Aunt Clara angry with me because I dislike Southern Gospel . . . “

    I cannot resist pointing out that in this matter you share Mr. Wilson’s predicament.

    Hope you will have more sympathy for him now.

    Comment by Ashwin — July 2, 2010 @ 8:12 am

  3. Great to hear from you, Thomas — thanks for reading. You make an excellent point about the posture of reverence we assume when reciting the Pledge and the Apostles’ Creed; I suppose “grace” allows us to slouch at the latter while adjusting posture, position, and millinery for the former. An excellent example of the Church missing the point . . . I hope you keep reading, and I’m sure you’d still find Moscow as charming as you did when you lived here.

    Take care,
    Keely

    Comment by Keely Emerine-Mix — July 4, 2010 @ 2:57 am

  4. Ashwin, Ashwin, Ashwin. Is it really too terribly difficult to understand that my criticisms of Wilson are precisely BECAUSE he pontificates about things that are entirely significant — not because he picks at the minor stuff? Trust me. If the Pontiff of the Palouse ran on and on about crunchy peanut butter vs. creamy, I wouldn’t care. It’s because he inserts himself wrongly into significant issues not any of his business, or errs greatly in significant issues appropriate for him to discuss, that he’s the target of my ire. I keep thinking, my friend, that someday that will become clear . . .
    Keely

    Comment by Keely Emerine-Mix — July 4, 2010 @ 3:01 am

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL

Leave a comment

Powered by WordPress