Killing.......in Jesus Name.........

I agree with this article and have made such principled observations many times in the past ... but I would go a step further (or a step backward) and also apply the principle discussed to the individual believer's relation to his convention and to his seminary.

Seminar discussions with a group of evangelicals concerning religion and the body politic can get amusing, intense, heated, engaging and at times disturbing -- particularly when the discussion turns to whether or not it is idolatrous to incorporate the national pledge of allegiance, patriotic ballads and/or other forms of national pride into the gathered, corporate worship of the triune God.

To such a conversation several colleagues and I turned just yesterday. The question was particular at first: What harm is done by bringing the Boy Scouts into a Sunday morning liturgy bearing flags and leading in the recitation of the pledge? More specifically, the instance that prompted the most intense part of my conversation was that it had happened in a Roman Catholic church. At first, I was shocked that my otherwise astute interlocutor was "okay" with the pledge as a part of sacred worship. My concern, and that of others, is that "pledging allegiance" to anything or anyone other than God in worship constitutes, at the least, subtle and incipient idolatry. I guess I should have been less incredulous -- Catholics don't understand the Protestant revulsion to idolatry, icons, statues of MaryJosephJesus or (insert your patron saint here).

But it's not a Catholic-Protestant issue. Many a mindless Protestant has succumbed to the tempting allure of nationalistic piety and patriotic obeisance. But this conversation was not occuring between mindless men given to blind acceptance of any appeal to patriotic sentimentality.

Another of my colleagues, a gracious and studious chap, went so far as to suggest that it is a Christian's "duty" to pledge to the flag, to sing the national anthem, and to take up arms to kill on command when the almighty state (justly ordered) "drafts" them. My concern, even fear, is manifold.

First, a Christian is not obliged by God to swear an oath of allegiance to any government, king, or flag. Jesus told his disciples to "render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's...and unto God that which is God's." The greatest stretch of interpretive license can only allow that a Christian is obliged to pay taxes to Caesar -- their souls they owe to God alone. To suggest that a "good Christian" will, out of obedience to God, pledge his allegiance to any temporal authority reflects an uncritical, and perhaps anti-Christian, doctrine of civic responsibility.

Consider, if you will, the scenario of the prophet Daniel. Within a few short weeks he was under the temporal authority of the Babylonians, then the Medes and the Persians. Three different rulers in rapid succession. To which of these governments was he to owe his allegiance? The message is clear: Daniel owed his allegiance to God alone. Were Christian dissidents in Soviet Russia obliged to swear allegiance to the communist state? Were Chinese students in Tiennamen commiting sin against God when they refused to pledge their lives to the machine of oppressive regimes? Are peace-loving Muslims obliged to swear their allegiance to the Iranian tyrants and take up arms against the United States? Is it any state to which a Christian must pledge his allegiance, or just the democratic ones?

When it came to Daniel and his obstinate companions, they found that refusal to owe their souls to the state alongside God had drastic consequences. But they also discovered that the furnace kindled hot for the uncompromising soul would, in the end, serve as that vexing scene wherein the faithful come to experience beatific solidarity with the very Son of God.

Second, no state is authorized by God with the legitimacy to "require" that its citizens pick up a rifle and shoot it at whatever target is put in front of them. Men are not, under any circumstance, intended by God to be uncritically obliged to serve the warring objectives of modern empire, however just the war may be. The privilege of conscientious objection must be esteemed above the obligation to murder when Uncle Sam says it's right. Whether or not a Christian is given a special dispensation of grace when he chooses to kill his fellow man while engaged in just military conflict is another matter. But to suggest that a devout Christian will always opt for the sword over the plowshare is to deny a great tradition of biblical interpretation. Moreover, it suggests a further evidence that love of God has been trumped by nationalist passion.

Can a Christian pledge allegiance, voluntarily, to any state of his choosing. I think a Christian should be allowed the latitude to maintain his civic duty without saluting or paying tribute to a temporal authority. Those who do, in good conscience, are not un-Christian (so long as it is not confused with worship that is rightly rendered to God alone). Those who cannot should be given the recognition that their faithfulness to God or obedience to ruling authorities is not encumbered by their freedom of conscience.

Can a Christian arm himself with an assault rifle and pick off Muslims by the bushel in Iraq without fear that he is violating the royal law of God to love his neighbor as himself? No Christian will accept whatever responsibility the state puts on him without carefully weighing the moral rightness of the action required. To send a soul to meet his maker is far too grave a matter than that we should suggest that only the "best Christians" will kill in order to obey the state, and thus God.

Long post...stay tuned for some shorter soundbite quips about those who think any person ought swear an oath or draw a sword to qualify as a faithful disciple of the Prince of Peace.

... or a pen.