Print
I Pledge Allegiance: A Prophetic Parable
The command was pretty straightforward: “When the trumpet is sounded, every person must fall prostrate before the golden idol.” Remember, this was not a call to idolatry in the pure sense of the term. In Daniel 3:9, the distinction is drawn between “serving the Babylonian gods” and “bowing to the golden image.” This idol did not bear the name of a pagan god. It had not been created in the mold of the golden calf or the baals and ahserot of Israel’s ancient enemies. This was not the defeated Dagon who had crumbled before the Philistines. It was not a representative of the menacing Marduk or the mysterious Ahura-Mazda.
No, the summons was not an invitation to worship a symbol of recognized divinity, but a call for allegiance to a state. It was a call to unhindered patriotism. The idol represented the impregnable kingdom of Babylon–a multi-ethnic empire that flourished in the arts and was technologically advanced; a well fortified state with the best military in the world. This golden tower indicated the spirit of Babylon.
Neutral Symbol?
Knowing that his administrators included those who would not consciously bow to a foreign god, Nebuchadnezaar had created an image that bore the semblances of neutrality. It had no name and claimed no portion of heaven or earth as its jurisdiction. It was not responsible for warfare, famine, rain, or vegetation. This was an idol that represented an ideal. This was the personification of Babylon, the greatest kingdom on earth. The empire of Babylon was the melting pot of the ancient world. Africans, Europeans, and Asians lived together under the same rule of law. The culture was infused with the exotic sounds, tastes, and smells of distant lands. This is what the mighty statue represented–the foundation of a new world order where Babylon reigned supreme.
Those privileged with Babylonian citizenship undoubtedly felt that their nation was worthy of adulation. Their young men were known for their scientific prowess. The hanging gardens in the midst of the city was heralded an international wonder. This was not a backwards country like Assyria or Israel. This nation invoked pride. Its citizens never once questioned how Babylon had achieved its greatness. They never once reflected on the fact that other societies and cultures had to be pillaged and destroyed in order for Babylon to attain her esteem.
With the combined national adrenalin running high, it was no surprise that as soon as the orchestra began to play the Babylonian national anthem, the tens of thousands who had gathered on the Plain of Dura fell prostrate in concert. Old and young assumed the position of begging canines as they paid patriotic homage to their land. As the melody permeated the air, the emotions were evoked in the civic worshipers as they kissed the ground with tear filled eyes–pledging eternal allegiance to a land whose days were numbered.
National Pressure
It is hard to resist the pressure when an entire nation is ravaged with nationalistic fever. I’m sure there were many silent objectors on the Plain of Dura who would have much rather been engaged in their favorite pastime. Some may even have felt foolish groveling in front of a piece of polished metal. Among the crowd were many Sons of Israel who had been taken into captivity with other Jews. They were familiar with the Lord’s commandments and understood that even though this image was not intended to represent a divinity, it was indeed a graven image. They knew that bowing down to this symbol meant turning their backs on God.
However, as they looked at the military guards stationed in strategic positions around the Plain, they feared for their safety. They forgot the promise penned by David who declared, “The angel of the Lord camps around those who fear Him, and he delivers them” (Psalm 34:7). They forgot the Shemah which declared that there is only one Yahweh. They forgot their professed identity as children of the living God who had declared loyalty to the Divine theocracy.
Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego had no delusions about the implications of bowing to the image. Although the 90 feet structure towered menacingly above them, they recalled that it was a mere ant in the presence of the God who towers above the heavens and the earth. Although they knew that those who refused to bow would immediately be thrown into a fiery furnace, they also understood that all those who worshiped the beast and his image will be thrown into the unquenchable lake of fire and brimstone. Although they felt every eye of the gullible worshipers affixed on them, they knew these human eyes were outnumbered by the angelic eyes in the heavenly courts. With this firm assurance entrenched in their hearts, when the imperial orchestra transmitted its harmonious melodies throughout the airwaves and all those around them fell prostrate before the image, these three soldiers for Yahweh remained erect.
This was no easy feat for the three Hebrew men. They were in a strange land with no embassy to protect them. They did not have the luxury of diplomatic immunity. They could not appeal to the Supreme Court. Nebuchadnezzar had absolute power and his word was irrevocable law. When the three servants of God refused to pledge allegiance to the symbol of national identity, they knew that their earthly days were numbered.
No to Compromise
When the enforcers informed Nebuchadnezaar of the defiance displayed by the Hebrew men, Nebuchadnezaar was somewhat saddened. These were solid members of his government who had served valiantly and faithfully. They accomplished their tasks with accuracy and professionalism and had raised the standard of efficiency in their respective departments. Surely these loyal workers who have made fine contributions to the empire would not openly defy the President of the United States of Babylon.
When the case was brought to the king, he loosely interpreted his own law and sought to give them a second chance to prove their patriotism. After all, this was not worship in the true sense. They were not being cajoled to bow to a real god. They were just being asked to acknowledge the accomplishments of the only remaining super power. What could be wrong with this? What could be wrong with pledging allegiance to a nation through a physical emblem?
Hananiah, Mishael and Azariah listened to the king and then offered their respectful response. “O King, if the only option we have is to be thrown into the fiery furnace, then so be it. But we will not serve your gods, nor will we pledge allegiance to your golden statue. Please don’t think we are being rude, but we serve a God who is able to deliver us from the fiery furnace, and from your hand. And even if he chooses not to, we will not bow down to your image.”
Publically embarrassed by their response and infuriated by their pious obstinance, Nebuchadnezaar ordered the furnace to be made seven times hotter and passed judgement on the brave soldiers of God. Those who know the story, will recall that God miraculously delivered the young men and the king was impressed to the point of conversion.
Conclusion
Everybody’s story may not end like the three Hebrews. Some who choose not to pledge allegiance to the image may have to endure the horrors of the furnace without any benefit of divine anaesthesia. Those who serve God should not be beguiled by the Lois Lane expectations of Superman coming to the rescue in the nick of time. The Hebrews were assured not by the belief that God would deliver, but the knowledge that he could. Consequently, they were not going to sell their souls for a false sense of belonging and a fragile security. There were some things more important than dutiful obedience to country with ditto-headed mesmerism. They had a prophetic responsibility to stand for God even if the heavens fell.
As you contemplate this parable, how will you respond when the music plays? Will you join the loyal throng who seek security in the system, or will you resist the urge to conform to the secular spirit?
Keith Augustus Burton is an adjunct faculty member at Oakwood University and Florida Hospital College of Health Sciences. This “parable” is adapted from a sermon presented during the height of American patriotic fever on the second anniversary of 9-11.
User login
Recent
- victor Kinship International Responds to British Union Conference Statement on Same-Sex Marriage
- WC Kinship International Responds to British Union Conference Statement on Same-Sex Marriage
- victor Kinship International Responds to British Union Conference Statement on Same-Sex Marriage
- Rescued LSU Responds to Biology Professor Lee Greer
- Defender of THE Faith Kinship International Responds to British Union Conference Statement on Same-Sex Marriage
- Roger S The Dark Fantasy World of Walter Veith
- Maggie Ethics, Evolution, and Ben Carson
- George Tichy Pacific Union Conference Calls Special Constituency Meeting to Authorize Equality in Ordination
- Maggie Ethics, Evolution, and Ben Carson
- dl LSU Responds to Biology Professor Lee Greer
Newsletter
Organizations
Sat, 09/08/2012
|
San Diego Adventist Forum
Sigve Tonstad, MD, PhD, Associate Professor of Religion, Loma Linda
University
Current Issue
Not yet a subscriber? Subscribe today!
Keith,
Extend that to the "World Zeitgeist" which Babylon represented then and when future "Babylon falls" and you make some thoughtful points.
The temptation to worship the state/world and all it means along with it's "inclusive religions" for social harmony, well being and security above the "Creator God/Christ"...as was "inclusive" Babylon...will be indeed be a difficult test for us all just as it was to the three faithfuls. A spirit "Inclusive to all" excepting the worship of JUST only THE "Creator of Heaven and Earth."
Was the "unquenchable lake of fire and brimstone" actually part of Hebrew theology at the time of the Babylonian captivity?
In my darker moments I keep thinking:
In the Pledge of Allegiance, the oblique assertion is made that the United States is led by God--"one nation, under God." Given the fact that the US has been involved in crimes against humanity (slavery and segregation) and wrong-headed wars abroad (Vietnam, Irak) and numerous other deadly adventures that few people would attribute to God, this "under God" clause sounds blasphemous, and I wonder what then is the difference between bowing down before the statue representing Babylon the Great and pledging allegiance to a divinely led US? Aren't we talking about secular idolatry in both cases?
In my lighter moments, I argue to my students that the Pledge of Allegiance is not descriptive of any current reality; it's a commitment to certain ideals that we'd all like to see realized.
So what's your take on the Pledge of Allegiance, in the context of Daniel 2 (unhistorical though it be)?
Aage
The phrase "under God" was not in the original pledge of allegiance, but was added during Eisenhower's administration.
How many SDA churches display both the Christian and U.S. flags very prominently? How does idolatry differ from the worship of one's country and the worship of any object?
Elaine
The pledge of allegiance was composed by a Baptist preacher turned socialist. It originally did not contain the phrase "under God" that was added to counter act the Soviet's claim of athetism during the cold war. As Elaine points out that was during the Eisenhower administration but was promoted by zealots in Congress.
All nations are under God--never-the-less the phrase does invoke the idea that the U.S. is particularly the apple of the eye of the Lord.
Tom Z.
What I like most about this article is the time the original sermon was presented. Huge amen, Dr B.
Royo
Is it really written?
Great article. When you pledge allegiance to something, those words mean something.
I welcome the phrase "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance. While not a perfect statement of patriotism (as aptly described above), the Pledge without it would recognize the state as the ultimate, unquestioned authority. The phrase "under God" is an escape clause that provides for times when there is a moral, ethical, or spiritual conflict where one must choose to "obey God rather than man."
I'm a strong believer in separation of church and state, and not so much a believer in pithy generalized statements of blind patriotism, but in this case the pledge would be downright frightening without some kind of release valve.
Rep. Tom McClintock wrote a good essay on the subject - http://mcclintock.house.gov/senate-archive/article_detail.asp?PID=263 - and while I don't agree with everything, he makes a great point:
"In the philosophy of the French Revolution, the rights of man were defined by a governmental committee and extended at the sufferance of that government. In the American view, these rights come from God, their existence is preeminent and their preservation is the principal object of government.
"If the source of our fundamental rights is not God, then the source becomes man – or more precisely, a government of men. And rights that can be extended by government may also be withdrawn by government."
This creates a funky situation for atheists because while it acknowledges God, it also recognizes a moral drive greater than the government which I suppose could be described in a number of ways.
Can't agree with Peabody. That phrase, Under God, should *not* appear in the Pledge. Actually the Pledge originated with Francis Bellamy, a Minister. He did not see fit to insert that phrase and it was injected during the Eisenhower Administration as a protest against Communism.
True separation of church and state requires that a secular government not be involved with the Deity. Suppose it were an Islamist country and the rulers decided to say under Allah or Mohammed can't you just see Peabody and colleagues taking up arms (editorial) against this intrusion?
Michael
There are many countries that have a much better track record than the US when it comes to securing civil rights and human rights for its citizens than the US, countries that make no pretense of being directed by God. I have a problem with the fact that we in the US pretend that we're more responsive to God than the people of other countries when the US outcomes are as dubious as they are. The fact is that European secularists have created societies that in many respects are qualitatively better than ours. Wouldn't it be better to leave God out of this? I don't see how it benefits God to be made responsible political solutions that are sub-optimal at best and indefensible at worst.
Also, arguing, as McClintock does, that the source of our fundamental rights is God, could possibly be defended in some universal sense, but the God described by the Biblical authors is not strong on such rights. Take the 10 commandments:
1. They outlaw religious freedom--worship of Yahweh alone is permitted
2. They don't secure freedom from slavery (in fact, they preserve it)
3. They don't secure the equality of women (in fact, women are classified as chattel)
4. They don't secure freedom of speech
5. They don't secure any democratic rights
When Congress voted the "under God" phrase into the Pledge of Allegiance, black Americans were being lynched with impunity in the South and persecuted by sheriffs and the Klan when challenging their second-rate status. Just like Fredric Douglas, who thought the conversion of his massa might have caused him to lay off his gratuitous cruelty, African-Americans of the 1950s might have hoped that putting the nation "under God" would bring a change, but in neither case did things change. From the beginning, it's been a blasphemous phrase.
Aage
Here in the United States, we have the protection that few nations have: our Constitution which guarantees far more rights than the God of Israel granted. It is a vast improvement over that one which condoned slavery, inequality of women and the penalties for breaking the laws often led to stoning.
No, as imperfect as it may be, the U.S. offers (it may not always grant) far more liberties than were known under the Ten Commandments, often called "God's Law."
Now, if referring to Christ's commands, they are very simple: "Love your neighbor as yourself," which is another way of endorsing the Golden Rule.
Elaine
Okay, let's look at the Pledge without "under God" in it. If you pledge to it, you're stuck with whatever this says:
"I pledge allegiance to the flag, of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands - one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
So you pledge allegiance solely to a nation. I'm not saying the Pledge is the best thing out there, but if you're going to say it, don't you want it to apply so long as it is "under God" and if that ends, you're no longer under the obligation of the pledge?
I'd be more comfortable if it said, "so long as it is moral, ethical, and reasonable." And, "Your Friend," you've got the history right, but the unintended benefit is in the wording itself as I described above.
Aage, you make a good point. There is probably a good reason why the Pledge of Allegiance was not part of the Constitution or the Declaration of Independence. It doesn't seem quite consistent with a notion of the individual rights that we work toward, does it?
As a citizen of the US, I have no problem with "the pledge" or "under God." Understood in the pledge is that the present rulers are acting under the laws of the Republic and are "under God" in priority.
Seems safe to me. If they are not acting as such my pledge ceases to be in effect.
I do not pledge allegiance to any flag, to any government, to any nation, to any ideology.
The US is the only nation I know of that has such a pledge, and whether it is over the top to have one or not obviously can be debated, but the pledge itself, the way it originally was, is acceptable to me:
"I pledge allegiance to the flag, of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands - one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
The blasphemy is to suggest that US politicians take their directives from God, a concept that reduces God to whatever political constellation is in power. The French government opposed the war in Irak from day one. The American government not only supported going to war, it fabricated reasons for doing so. Which choice represented the will of God, pray tell? If God exists, I'm sure the French (godless) position was more pleasing to him, but putting that question quite aside, wouldn't it be simpler to leave God completely out of such fallible endeavors as politics? There is no need to turn one's country into Nebuchadnezzar's statue before which we need to bow down, in the name of our country's god.
Pat, your view that "our current leaders" are "under God" "in priority" is therefore an idea that I can't subscribe to. Obama is an admirable President, but his policies are hardly divinely inspired, nor do they indicate that he's got access to wisdom and values that are not equally available to the leaders of other countries.
Aage
Coming from a nation that expresses its constitutionality in different ways to the US, I struggle at times to understand the fervour of the people of the US. We take pride in our sporting hero's and accomplishments, in our contribution to UN peace keeping efforts, and to the UN, and in the accomplishments that individual and corporate bodies have achieved. There are two days each year which are significant to our nation. However, with it comes a realisation that we are but a bit player on the world stage. The national flag is not prominently displayed in public, in schools or on public buildings. The national anthem is seldom heard. People's loyalties are largely to themselves, their families, their sports teams and their ideologies.
Visiting the US, one gets a sense that the loyalty to the US as an institution is much greater. I drove down streets, looking at houses proudly displaying their US flags, and my reaction to it was "how nice", while at the same time pausing to wonder about whether the occupants loyalty to the nation extending to thinking about issues that are larger than the nation. Observing the US flag in churches was another matter altogether. Do worshippers in such churches believe in a borderless christian community or not. As a foreigner, it feels to me as if there is a greater loyalty to the flag than to the cross, based on the external symbols observed. And don't get me started on the extremism observed in US politics.
I suppose it comes down to - where does our loyalty lie. Is it expressed through patriotism unconditionally. Does it become balanced by a more international perspective, or a given perspective on ideals. If my country expresses evil, do I accept it or seek to change it.
Having expressed an ambivalent patriotic view, I hope my nation trounce the Aussies in the rugby game tonight. I'm looking forward to a freezing cold night in the stands, with 50,000 people, the vast majority preferring one team over another. Go the All Blacks!!!!
Billman
I think your New Zealand perspective is very representative of the democratic world outside the US. Here in the US there is a cult of nationality embraced by many, especially right-wingers. The US adage "My country right or wrong" is unthinkable in virtually all non-dictatorial countries outside the US. As a naturalized citizen I too was slightly shocked to see the American flag displayed in many churches when I came to this country. Patriotism can be a force for good, but to blur the lines between the secular and the sacred is not something I support.
PS. My old countrymen, the Norwegians, wave the flag even more than Americans, as anybody who's ever watched winter sports or the Tour de France will recognize, but you'll never see a single flag in any church, regardless of denomination and I can't remember ever having seen it used in the context of election campaigns or politics.
Aage
If you look at the reason that many people came to America originally it was for "freedom of religion" that wasn't afforded them in the "old country". So in a sense "old glory" is not out of place in the churches as the USA guaranties that freedom to worship the God of our choice. Many people have forgotten that the original 13 colonies were largely separated based on religious preference. Lord Baltimore founded the state of Maryland as a Catholic colony largely. It was the federation of many different "religious states" in essence. The USA has many great moments in world history and many not so great moments as we all know but its founding principles are uniquely great in world history even today.
Aage I know you are a teacher from previous posts but I was wondering what classes you teach?
Fred
Fred
The pledge equates the flag with "the Republic for which it stands." If you interpret that as the founding documents of the US, the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, I can go a long ways towards agreeing with you. The problem is that to many people it's also a symbol of the secular state as it is, warts and all, and I don't think that a church should be in the business of putting its imprimatur on that. A church should aspire to a prophetic role, in the sense of speaking truth to power, and not be a servile underwriter of a nation's self-serving patriotism.
PS. Fred, as to your question, in Norway I taught most of the humanities, including religion, in this country I teach high school French.
Aage
Aage
As a humorous aside, the only class I was ever asked to leave and "go to the principal's office" was high school French. I was "wrongfully accused" of talking!!
Imagine that!!!!
:>)
Fred
When I was a kid growing up in California before WW2, they told us the USA pays a lot of extra attention to the flag (including daily Salute in the classroom) - - because we do not have a King nor a lot of other symbols like most other countries (as of the 1930s), that we can "pledge allegiance" to.
My son was in Boy Scouts of America 1970-1980, living near a campus of the University of California. Two sons of a Visiting Professor from England associated with the Troop (including biweekly Troop meetings, weekend treks, and major summer activities).
=
The question arose as to what the UK boys should do when the Troop gave the Pledge of Allegiance to the US Flag. The answer (which seemed to satisfy everyone) was that they should stand but not salute (nor place hand over heart in the "civilian" substitute for salute). By standing, they are expressing respect for the country they are visiting, but they are not promising any sort of "allegiance" to the flag nor "to the Republic for which it stands."
=
This was of course long after Eisenhower's time when "under God" was inserted into the pledge.
Billman
Congrats on the All Blacks victory. Did you wave the NZ flag?
Aage
Regarding the inclusion of the phrase, "under God," Aage wrote
The blasphemy is to suggest that US politicians take their directives from God, a concept that reduces God to whatever political constellation is in power. The French government opposed the war in Irak from day one. The American government not only supported going to war, it fabricated reasons for doing so. Which choice represented the will of God, pray tell?
My question exactly, Aage.
Royo
Is it really written?
Webster defines allegiance as: fidelity to one's sovreign state. Webster also defines worship as reverence offered to a divine being. I don't see a conflict although I think adding "under God" was a gratuitous and self-righteous political act.
I think Adventism is close enough to Jehovah Witnesses as not to make a case over the flag.
In fact, I think "under God" can serve a useful purpose: Not only the country but I as a person am
under God. Being under means I must answer to God above country. I will honor and serve my country within the limits of my understanding of God's will for me. Tom Z
Amen Tom,
Within defined parameters there is nothing wrong with patriotism. Why should I love another country more than my own if it is "basically" just in it's ideals? "One nation" is just that...not necessarily the "only one" as God is sovereign over all nations.
Hope you saw that Stott passed into the faithful keeping of his Lord.
regards,
pat
I think having national flags in the sanctuary is wrong.
Renee Hernandez
Amen, Renee!
Thanks Pat.
Yes I noted the passing of John Stott. What a wonderful Christian who sharted his toughts and convictions so well with his pen. Tom Z
Renee and ellen
Why do you think having national flags in church is wrong??
Fred
To say that America is "under God" is an insult to Diety given the bloody and corrupt track record of the USA since its inception. The continuous massacre of the indindeous people of the continent ' the enslavement of blacks; the annexation of Mexican territory, aggression on Canada in the early 1800's; the support of death squads and dictatorships world wide ; the use of the A bomb on an already defeated Japan ; the explotation the the third world; and even the exjudicial killing of Bin Laden all point to a nation possessed by the devil not "under God".
Myths and fables are important to any culture or people but they are only myths. Truth is something else.
Abe,
I wonder if Daniel and Joseph felt that Babylon and Egypt were "one nation under God" during their civil capacity. Did they have no allegiance to those countries witihn defined parameters but that only God is ultimately Sovereign? I also wonder if Egypt and Babylon were "pacifist" during their service.
Point made.
Civil authorities while "never perfect" and on occassion abusive, do not carry the sword in vain. This needful service against evil is ordained of God for the unruly.
Christ Himself will one day bare the sword in principle(Rev.19) to deliver His own from the nations.
regards,
pat
Fred
I don't think having the American flag in Church is wrong. The larger question is should all Adventist Churches worldwide desplay their nation's flag? What does having some but not others say?
I have no answer. There was a day in Adventism when having any flag or cross was pagan.
I can remember when two great grand daughters of Ellen White carried the Christian Flag and the American flag with 48 stars down the center of the EMC chapel for the first time on Flag day 1941. We men were never quite sure if we were standing at attention for the flags or the girls.
I personally have the American flag displayed on my home 24/7 lighted at night. It is the proper thing for a democrat living in a Tea Party community.
Tom Z.
I pledge allegiance to New Zealand. I think we should all have the NZ flag in our churches everywhere in the world. It is consistently ranked in international polls as one of the best places in the world to live for many reasons, and is well-nicknamed "God's Own Country". It doesn't have international enemies, and it told the nation with nuclear powered warships to take them back home. It's not perfect, but it's more perfect than many other places. It's a rainbow nation of many nationalities with a rich indigenous culture and history. There were no beggars in the streets like I see increasingly here in the USA. Perhaps we could learn something from somewhere else.
Josh,
I think it is wonderful you love your country and I think it is fine if it is displayed in NZ churches while the state recognizes freedom of religion.
I also love my country, the US, but not all the "opportunist politicians/special interest" who have had authority and undermine it's Constitution. SO, within defined parameters we can all pledge allegiance and have patriotism for the countries we are most acquainted with and love...yet they remain to be judged by the Sovereign Lord.
I think a lot of Aussies and New Zealanders appreciate the mutual relationship of the US with them in WWII against what would have been their new Emperor from Japan.
Wonder how that "religious freedom" would have been.
regards,
pat
Pat, I'm not a New Zealander!!
Aage, the Pledge of Allegiance reads "One nation under God" not "One nation (comma) under God."
Patti Cottrell Grant
I really liked the article and should have said so first, before the correction. Thanks for writing from the heart. I agree with your position.
Patti Cottrell Grant
I have little problem with the pledge as such. The issue that is very troubling to me is the display of the flag in churches. In the church that I attend, there are two significant symbols at the very front, each having tremendous meaning. The first is the cross; and Christians know what that stands for. But just beside it is the US flag, and we ought to know what that stands for.
I see these two symbols as representing the values of two opposing kingdoms. On the one hand is the kingdom of this world that is governed by the love of power. On the other hand is the kingdom Jesus said is "not of this world" and is governed by the power of love.
I have frequent feelings that, perhaps ignorantly, we are bowing down to an idol and taking God's name in vain by having this type of mixed loyalty in the very house of worship dedicated to Jesus Christ.
I am a citizen, and i love many things about the USA. i render unto Caesar those things that are his, including voting sometimes, paying my taxes all the time, etc. I keep the laws of the land. But I am a firm believer in rendering unto God the things that are exclusively his; and worshiping him as the only God, having no other gods before or after him, is the highest homage i can offer to anyone.
Why don't we keep the flag in a room where it can be displayed for events, and on occasions, that warrant it? Get it out of the sanctuary.
Add your comment