Should flags be placed in the sanctuary?

[Rich Koster]

I am against it. I grew up in churches we would pledge allegiance to the American Flag, the Christian Flag, and the Bible (in that order). I didn't have a problem with this when I was young, but I look back and shudder a bit.

I remember doing this during VBS and some other special meetings in 2 SBC congregations.

 

[Notthemama1984]

I am against it. I grew up in churches we would pledge allegiance to the American Flag, the Christian Flag, and the Bible (in that order). I didn't have a problem with this when I was young, but I look back and shudder a bit.

I forgot that we did the pledge to the bible as well, and in the same order. What church did you grow up in?

Various SBC churches

 

[au5t1n]

I am against it. I grew up in churches we would pledge allegiance to the American Flag, the Christian Flag, and the Bible (in that order). I didn't have a problem with this when I was young, but I look back and shudder a bit.

I remember doing this during VBS and some other special meetings in 2 SBC congregations.

Yeah, my old SBC did this during VBS and Awana only.

 

[SolaScriptura]

I wonder if military chaplains have to deal with this. I would imagine in a military chapel there would be an American flag. (I mean, its probably even on the chaplain's uniform).

Of course the flag is on my right sleeve. I'm fine with that. When I'm in uniform I'm an agent of the US, so I have no problem with that.

I have always been able to have the chapel sanctuary "done up" the way I want when I'm officiating worship. And one of the things I do is have them remove all trappings. Believe it or not, I know several chaplains who do the same thing.

---------- Post added at 04:48 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:44 PM ----------

Sure, it is on our uniform and it probably will be in the chapel. That isn't a reason for me to avoid chapel services or military service in general. I see a difference between a military setting and a civilian one. The military setting is bringing God into a governmental setting, but a civilian church is bringing government into a spiritual setting. I see a huge difference.

If this is true, then the government has a legitimate right to tell you what you can or can't talk about in the chapel. After all, what you've essentially said is that God is their guest, and as you know, guests need to obey "house rules."

 

[Notthemama1984]

Good point.

 

[Andres]

The answer in the original post from the OPC Q&A seems to be spot on for me. I voted no.

 

[Willem van Oranje]

I have also seen the Covenanters' Blue Banner "For Christ's Crown and Covenant" displayed during RPCNA worship services, usually central and directly behind/above the pulpit. While I love the blue banner, I would prefer that it be placed in the back of the chapel.

 

[Tripel]

I voted other.

Having the American flag regularly displayed in a place of worship is unnecessary. Is it forbidden? I'm not sure. To me it's just a flag. I don't find a flag in any way distracting. Actually, I don't understand people's "distraction" argument. When you see a flag during worship does your mind wander off into patriotic song rather than the worship of God?
I can understand those of you who object to it on principle, and for that reason I think it's best not to have the flag on display.

That said, I think it IS appropriate to have flags on display on special occasions. My church (and many others) brings out flags during our missions conferece (Yes, I know, some of you object to conferences, but please start a new thread if you want to discuss that). We display all of the flags of the countries where we are supporting missionaries. The US flag is included on that one Sunday.

 

[SemperEruditio]

While visiting family on the 4th we worshipped at a PCA church. The first thing my heathen nephews asked was about the US flag on the "stage." After service we all left singing "I'm proud to be an American, where at least I know I'm free..." Unless you have a flag from every single nation represented in the congregation then there should not be any flag. I've been to churches where there were many flags and the flags were in alphabetical order based on the country. Many of the other vets took issue with this and it opened up a dialogue...which went no where because This is the U.S. of A.! Not the United Nations!

 

[Willem van Oranje]

While visiting family on the 4th we worshipped at a PCA church. The first thing my heathen nephews asked was about the US flag on the "stage." After service we all left singing "I'm proud to be an American, where at least I know I'm free..." Unless you have a flag from every single nation represented in the congregation then there should not be any flag. I've been to churches where there were many flags and the flags were in alphabetical order based on the country. Many of the other vets took issue with this and it opened up a dialogue...which went no where because This is the U.S. of A.! Not the United Nations!

Ouch! That service would have driven me mad! I've had enough of a hard time stomaching Lee Greenwood in secular settings. That song is pure paganism. "I thank my lucky stars..."

 

[Austin]

Just a thought: As I've pondered this one thought keeps on coming to mind, "Would Paul place a Roman eagle or a sign saying 'Senatus et populi Romani' (SPQR) in the Sanctuary?" As I said, it's just a thought.

At my church I served in Louisiana we had this problem. When I first arrived we were in a rented facility and had no flag. While we were building the new facility, the session decided against ever having them in the sanctuary.

But, as our church was one that had left the PCUSA for the EPC (and in the process lost the old church building), we had to deal with the issue A LOT. After we'd been in the new place for some time the Women's Ministry guild decided to raise money to decorate the sanctuary. The Session & I laid down a standard Reformed set of guidelines based on the Regulative Principle of Worship (yes, some EPC congregations DO observe it...). Anyhow, one old Marine veteran inconspicuously told the ladies he thought it would be fine to have a set of flags in the sanctuary, and then went & found another veteran's widow to donate money designated for that purpose. We wanted to refuse to accept the money, but the elderly lady was a "sweet ole lady" and she meant well. Plus, her son was an elder, and we didn't want to offend. SO... the Session decided to allow the ladies guild to buy them PROVIDED that they stayed in the narthex and never came in to the sanctuary. Well, eventually this old Marine get a slew of flags for our missions conference for every country we supported missionaries in, and had them all placed by the Missions Committee in the sanctuary. When the Missions Conference started, there they all were. After the conference we decided to remove them back to the sanctuary. The old Marine then pounced, saying it was pathetic that with all we owe to America, it was an insult to all the veterans & their widows in the church to take them out & put the US & "Christian" flags back in the narthex. The battle continued, with the flags in the narthex for a time till the Session decided it wasn't a hill to die on & allowed them in the sanctuary, provided they weren't on the chancel, but were on the floor of the sanctuary in the shadowy wings of the front of the room. (This had the unfortunate effect of proving to all of our folks w/ agendas that they could get what they wanted if they only whined & complained long enough.)

The irony, as I understand it, is that US flags in the South started during Reconstruction (1863-1877), when the Federal army of occupation imposed military flags (the ones with the gold braid & tassels) on Southern churches to remind the people that there was no place where they could escape the reach of the US government. I tried to tell this story to the pro-flag guy & his cronies, only to be called "an unpatriotic a**hole." Now, I took umbrage at this, as I am descended from veterans of the War of the Revolution & the Confederate Army, among many other conflicts. (My grandfather was stationed in Okinawa to be in the 1st invasion of the Japanese Home Islands in 1945, for instance...) It probably goes without saying that nothing could overcome the Marine's views. Scripture, reason, history... it all failed to convince him. All I did was 1) earn an enemy, & 2) prove that he who donates much and complains more can get his way.

My takeaway: pick your battles. And even when you do all to avoid a battle, decide carefully what ground you stand on & only stand on it when you're sure to 'win.' And so, is this a battle worth fighting? Maybe. I am really bothered to have the standard of "one of the nations" (which will burn in the End) sitting in a sanctuary. But when powerful interests and/or easily wounded consciences are involved, be careful. You never know how your stands on adiaphoristic matters will end up biting you in the derriere. (Lesson learned the HARD way...)

But, that said, in an environment such as that in Zimbabwe or Iran, or in 1st century Rome, I would find it inexcusable to put a symbol of the overlord in the sanctuary. In America, and especially among a certain demographic, one sometimes has to use discretion and be willing to 'lose' for the sake of fruitful ministry.

As I said, just a thought.

SHalom,

 

[Peairtach]

As long as people realise that the flags aren't gods or don't represent gods/a god i.e. the nation should not be viewed as a god, they could be brought in occaisionally, when we thank God for deliverances in war and for our servicemen.

Otherwise you have "the abomination of desolation"!!!

HOW THE ROMANS CARRIED THEIR ENSIGNS TO THE TEMPLE, AND MADE JOYFUL ACCLAMATIONS TO TITUS. THE SPEECH THAT TITUS MADE TO THE JEWS WHEN THEY MADE SUPPLICATION FOR MERCY. WHAT REPLY THEY MADE THERETO; AND HOW THAT REPLY MOVED TITUS'S INDIGNATION AGAINST THEM.

1. AND now the Romans, upon the flight of the seditious into the city, and upon the burning of the holy house itself, and of all the buildings round about it, brought their ensigns to the temple (24) and set them over against its eastern gate; and there did they offer sacrifices to them, and there did they make Titus imperator (25) with the greatest acclamations of joy. And now all the soldiers had such vast quantities of the spoils which they had gotten by plunder, that in Syria a pound weight of gold was sold for half its former value. But as for those priests that kept themselves still upon the wall of the holy house, (26) there was a boy that, out of the thirst he was in, desired some of the Roman guards to give him their right hands as a security for his life, and confessed he was very thirsty. These guards commiserated his age, and the distress he was in, and gave him their right hands accordingly. So he came down himself, and drank some water, and filled the vessel he had with him when he came to them with water, and then went off, and fled away to his own friends; nor could any of those guards overtake him; but still they reproached him for his perfidiousness. To which he made this answer: "I have not broken the agreement; for the security I had given me was not in order to my staying with you, but only in order to my coming down safely, and taking up some water; both which things I have performed, and thereupon think myself to have been faithful to my engagement." Hereupon those whom the child had imposed upon admired at his cunning, and that on account of his age. On the fifth day afterward, the priests that were pined with the famine came down, and when they were brought to Titus by the guards, they begged for their lives; but he replied, that the time of pardon was over as to them, and that this very holy house, on whose account only they could justly hope to be preserved, was destroyed; and that it was agreeable to their office that priests should perish with the house itself to which they belonged. So he ordered them to be put to death.

View attachment 1870