flags and other graven images

[yeutter]

The liberal Presbyterian Church in Cadmus, MI used to have a UN flag in addition to the US and Christian flags.
The Anglican Church in Hastings, MI has no American flag but does have the Union Jack.
Even in military chapel I thought flags werre out of place.
Herman Hoeksema would not preach in an auditorium with a flag.

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

Originally posted by yeutter
The liberal Presbyterian Church in Cadmus, MI used to have a UN flag in addition to the US and Christian flags.

Figures.

The Anglican Church in Hastings, MI has no American flag but does have the Union Jack.

I like the Union Jack and the St. Andrew's Cross, but I still think they have no place in worship. The church in Michigan -- is that your church or another? It's technically Episcopalian, not Anglican, right? Why the Union Jack and not the US flag, I wonder?

Even in military chapel I thought flags werre out of place.

Herman Hoeksema would not preach in an auditorium with a flag.

Did he happen to write on this subject?

 

[JohnV]

Thom:

Does your church then yet recognize the Queen as head of the church? Or is it her representative, the Archbishop of Canterbury? Or is it separate from that, but yet maintains ties to British Common Law and its basis on the Christian Bible.

 

[ARStager]

Andrew,

You like the Union Jack, but you don't like the idea of it being pleged to? Just for clarification...

 

[yeutter]

I understand that the Hastings, MI congregation is now a part of the United Episcopal Church. They are a continueing church. I think they are looking to their roots in the British isles.

Did Hoeksema write on the issue of flags? I do not know. This occurred when he was still in the CRC shortly before WWI.

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

Originally posted by ARStager
Andrew,

You like the Union Jack, but you don't like the idea of it being pleged to? Just for clarification...

Right. I like the colors, and I like Great Britain in general (the Union Jack is a combination of the St. George flag and the St. Andrew's Cross). I don't agree with the concept of pledging allegiance to a flag, however, especially the flag of a nation that does not honor Christ.

 

[JohnV]

Andrew:

What if we established a new country, under God, but really under God. Let's say a Theonomic Republic, but not the on present concept of theonomy, but rather upon the basis that present democracies have their roots. Lets be Pilgrims all over again. Would you identify your new nation the same way, that you would absolutely refuse any pledge of allegiance?

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

Originally posted by JohnV
Andrew:

What if we established a new country, under God, but really under God. Let's say a Theonomic Republic, but not the on present concept of theonomy, but rather upon the basis that present democracies have their roots. Lets be Pilgrims all over again. Would you identify your new nation the same way, that you would absolutely refuse any pledge of allegiance?

Well, if you mean a Christian republic or commonwealth such as the Pilgrims or Puritans envisioned, I don't imagine I would be asked to make such a pledge. There is a time and a place for oaths and vows. Lawful oaths may be required by the civil magistrate upon just occasion. The Confession is my guide in this area. I am not permitted to make a vow or an oath (similar to a pledge) to a created thing, only to God. Even assuming that a pledge is but a secular oath, I don't see any profit or Biblical warrant. So, unless my conscience is convicted otherwise by the Word of God, I would say that I would have to refuse a pledge to a flag if it was thrust upon me.

Westminster Confession of Faith:

CHAPTER XXII.
Of Lawful Oaths and Vows.
I. A lawful oath is a part of religious worship, wherein upon just occasion, the person swearing solemnly calleth God to witness what he asserteth or promiseth; and to judge him according to the truth or falsehood of what he sweareth.

II. The name of God only is that by which men ought to swear, and therein it is to be used with all holy fear and reverence; therefore to swear vainly or rashly by that glorious and dreadful name, or to swear at all by any other thing, is sinful, and to be abhorred. Yet, as, in matters of weight and moment, an oath is warranted by the Word of God, under the New Testament, as well as under the Old, so a lawful oath, being imposed by lawful authority, in such matters ought to be taken.

III. Whosoever taketh an oath ought duly to consider the weightiness of so solemn an act, and therein to avouch nothing but what he is fully persuaded is the truth. Neither may any man bind himself by oath to any thing but what is good and just, and what he believeth so to be, and what he is able and resolved to perform. Yet it is a sin to refuse an oath touching any thing that is good and just, being imposed by lawful authority.

IV. An oath is to be taken in the plain and common sense of the words, without equivocation or mental reservation. It can not oblige to sin; but in any thing not sinful, being taken, it binds to performance, although to a man's own hurt: nor is it to be violated, although made to heretics or infidels.

V. A vow is of the like nature with a promissory oath, and ought to be made with the like religious care, and to be performed with the like faithfulness.

VI. It is not to be made to any creature, but to God alone: and that it may be accepted, it is to be made voluntarily, out of faith and conscience of duty, in way of thankfulness for mercy received, or for obtaining of what we want; whereby we more strictly bind ourselves to necessary duties, or to other things, so far and so long as they may fitly conduce thereunto.

VII. No man may vow to do any thing forbidden in the Word of God, or what would hinder any duty therein commanded, or which is not in his own power, and for the performance of which he hath no promise or ability from God. In which respects, monastical vows of perpetual single life, professed poverty, and regular obedience, are so far from being degrees of higher perfection, that they are superstitious and sinful snares, in which no Christian may entangle himself.

 

[JohnV]

The WCF doesn't prohibit the taking of oaths, but admonishes to take them seriously. Certainly an oath to the social commonwealth is still in order.

I detest the saying, "playing devil's advocate"; I would never do that. That to me is a breaking of these articles of faith. But I am interested in what you mean by pledging and taking oath, where you draw the limits.

 

[yeutter]

John;
You are correct.
None of the continueing Anglican denominations in the States [with the possible exception of the Anglican Mission in America which is part of the Anglican Church of Rawanda] recognize the English monarch as head of the Church. They follow the reworking of the the 39 Articles done in the early days of the Episcopal Church in this regard.
Most of the Primates of the several continueing Anglican bodies have also broken fellowship with the Archbishop of Canterbury. Some maintain fellowship with the Primate of Nigeria who is defacto the head of conservative Anglicanism.
Never the less they see themselves tied to England and Scotland because of historic cultural ties. That is part of the problem with Anglicanism in the states. How much of their zeal is for the King James Bible and the historic Book of Common Prayer is rooted in a cultural heritage; and how much of their zeal is for the cause of God and Truth?

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

Originally posted by JohnV
The WCF doesn't prohibit the taking of oaths, but admonishes to take them seriously. Certainly an oath to the social commonwealth is still in order.

I detest the saying, "playing devil's advocate"; I would never do that. That to me is a breaking of these articles of faith. But I am interested in what you mean by pledging and taking oath, where you draw the limits.

Well, an oath is to God, right? The pledge of allegiance that we are speaking of is to a flag. I don't see any warrant to pledge my allegiance to a flag or a "republic for which it stands." In the US, an oath of loyalty to the Constitution is required in many areas of life. My conscience doesn't permit to take that particular oath under any circumstances because of the words in the Constitution. If the words were different, the situation would be different. It makes a difference what specifically one is swearing or pledging loyalty to, and I can only judge that properly by looking closely at the words of the pledge/oath and the specific thing to which I am swearing/pledging. In the case of the US pledge, it was written by a socialist who had an idea of uniting the country on post-War Between the States values as he saw them. That is inconsistent with my understanding of a pledge or oath that I can Biblically agree to. As I say, if my conscience is informed otherwise, perhaps I could see differently. Right now, my conscience leads me to conclude that I would be binding myself in an Biblical way to some created thing or vague unBiblical concept that I find abhorent. To go against conscience is neither right nor safe, in the words of Martin Luther.