Flags in the Sanctuary: Maybe Not About Nationalism?

To begin thinking about this issue, I asked Perplexity (an AI search engine) to find online articles discussing American flags in Christian sanctuaries. Most offered some history of flags in the sanctuary; many raised points of concern about the placement of national flags in worship space.

One site stood clearly on the supportive side of placing flags in sanctuaries. It is an article by Professor Miles Smith in First Things, a publication of The Institute on Religion and Public Life. Its argument includes three observations: 1) other countries fly their national flags in churches; 2) pre-flag western societies included their symbols in worship space; and 3) the flag in worship space displays the proper relationship between Church and state.

Professor Smith cites quotations from pastors outside of the United States, arguing that according to their testimony that "the presence of the national standard in their churches [is not] inherently idolatrous or even particularly nationalistic." We should expect that no Christian pastor will ever see something in his congregation's sanctuary as idolatrous. This is a frequent problem with idols: We don't see them. As for being "particularly nationalistic": Smith's citations include one pastor saying that "We want to honor our national identity." Another says they post the flag to "show our loyalty as citizens to the country." These are expressly nationalistic reasons for flying the flag. Being a national symbol, the flag's presentation is always nationalistic. Smith's assertion here contradicts the evidence he cites.

Before churches had flags to fly, Smith writes, they put heraldric symbols and shields in the sanctuaries "symbolizing a nobleman's protection of the church or denoted his support of the building's construction." We will return to the matter of protection of the Church later (put a pin in that one); for now I go on to Smith's next words: "These shields signified medieval Christians' belief that the glory of the church reflected the glory of the state." That is an interesting phrasing. It seems to indicate that glory originates with the state, and is then reflected in, passed on to, the Church. This directionality of glory is, to me, precisely backwards.

If Smith is trying simply to say that flags are OK in sanctuaries because people have been doing something similar for a long time, then I am unconvinced. Long-established erroneous practice is still erroneous practice--perhaps more grievous for its endurance.

On his third major point Professor Smith raises the issue of the relationship between the Church and the state. "[D]isplaying the national flag in a church is a sign that we expect our government to fulfill its duty to protect our religious freedom." Here is a fascinating and redemptive possibility. Has the flag come to the altar of God in order to receive its marching orders? Is the flag bowing to the cross, just as Christians individually come to bow their hearts before Christ in worship?

I agree with the assertion that Christians, as they go out and participate in the political world, act in obedience to the voice of Christ. And I agree that all people of all nations are subject to the sovereignty of God; by implication the existence of nations and their destinies are subject to God's will and decree.

However, flags don't bow. As I observed in an earlier piece about flags and loyalty: Flags stand and fly as a commanding presence, not a subservient one. They must be the highest standard in the room--even a room where the cross takes the highest place. They own the place. Thus to put the cross and the flag in the same space creates a conflict of power and loyalty. So I am not convinced by Professor Smith's argument about the meaning of the flag in a worship space.

But more on that Church-state relationship next time. Thanks for taking symbolism, meaning, and practice seriously.

~ emrys

Flags in the Sanctuary: Loyalty

 My dad did not spend much time in front of a television screen. (That's what they were called back then: "Televisions.") When so much of American society at the time learned to collect VHS tapes and DVDs, our living room had a blessedly minimal number of recorded films. But he did have a boxed set of Humphrey Bogart films.

One of the few times we took an evening to watch a film at home with Dad we watched Casablanca. This classic WWII film (produced in 1942) focused on Rick's Café Américain, a "gin-joint" in Morocco where Nazi officers and Resistance leaders end up dining in the same room. In one famous scene, German officers stand and begin singing their national anthem, "Die Wacht am Rhein." A leader of the Resistance goes to the band and directs them to play the French national anthem, "La Marseillaise." All the non-Germans in Rick's Café stand and drown out the song of the German officers.

(If you would enjoy a deep dive into this scene with some excellent commentary, check this out.)

The songs are just songs, right? Just like "The Star Spangled Banner" is just a bunch of words strung together and laid over a bunch of musical notes strung together, right?

Who sings which song in Casablanca, and how loudly, displays the loyalty of the characters in the film. Morocco is contested territory in a war. All wars are about loyalty and who will give their lives for one nation or another, one cause or another, one flag or another. Since flags usually represent nations, flags represent an entity in whose importance we believe so strongly that we would die for it.

Conversely, flags command responses to two questions: Will you die for this? Are you loyal to this? For many people--especially those who have risked their lives in uniforms bearing the American flag, or have lost beloved family or friends in uniform--these questions are two sides of the same coin. To be loyal to something or someone, really loyal, means being willing to risk one's life to defend that thing or person. A flag, therefore, represents a question of ultimate loyalty.

This question is not new. Quite pertinent to Christians was the need for subjects of the Roman empire to show their allegiance to the emperor. In much of imperial history, this display of allegiance took the form of sacrifices made to the imperial cult, which viewed emperors as divine. As far as we know, sacrificing to the emperor didn't change life very much; but if one did not show that loyalty to the empire, one was suspect. If nothing else, the emperor commanded loyalty.

And Christians did not show that loyalty. They would pray for the emperor, conform to imperial laws (as long as it did not violate their conscience), and treat the emperor with honor. But they would not perform the signs of ultimate loyalty to the emperor or empire. They confessed that they had loyalty to only one: Jesus Christ.

[A linguistic aside: I have heard folks attempt to make a distinction between loyalty or allegiance (which I might have for my nation) and trust/faith/belief (which I only have for God). The bible makes no distinction in its language for these things. Faith/belief/trust/loyalty/allegiance are of a piece; and each/all belong to God alone. In making a distinction without a difference we may be trying to evade a problem.]

When we gather in worship, we do so specifically to declare our complete loyalty and allegiance to God in Jesus Christ, the author of life who is also the only one to conquer death and offer eternal life. We do so in explicit defiance of all the powers in the world who would claim our loyalty, command our obedience, and divide our hearts.

I do find it strange, then, that we place a symbol in our sanctuaries for another entity which commands loyalty and sacrifice unto death. If it calls for something less than ultimate faith, why does it adorn a space dedicated to heaven and eternal life? And if it calls for complete loyalty, is it not in competition with the Lord of All?

---

Next time: A first argument for flags in sanctuaries.

~ emrys

Flags in the Sanctuary: Symbolism

I remember visiting a church whose interior decor contained only images connected to Egypt. River scenes with papyrus plants filled the stained glass windows. Twin cobras showed up frequently in the space. And the central symbol was the winged disk of Amun-Ra. Are these symbols proper to Christian worship space?

To get at a robust answer to this question, I propose four smaller-scale and interrelated questions.

1. Whom or what do these symbols stand for? Does that person or thing connect directly with the faith of the Christian Church?

2. Whose story is behind these symbols? Does that body identify with the Christian Church?

Take the twin cobras. According to an article written about the history of the church I visited, twin cobras in Egyptian mythology stand for wisdom. Wisdom certainly is a virtue in the faith of the Christian Church. And the serpent is described in the Christian scriptures as wise. I don't know the story behind twin cobras coming to represent wisdom--which begins to provide an answer to the second question: My story is not behind this particular symbol. And I suspect that the people who pass on the story of the cobra and wisdom are not identical to the Christian Church.

What about Amun-Ra's disk? According to the same article, the disk represents eternity. And in the name of the disk itself is the name of an Egyptian god. Eternity as a concept connects with our faith; but the person of Amun-Ra does not. Whose story is there? Presumably there are stories in Egyptian mythology about Amun-Ra and his relationship to eternity. I do not know if there still exists a religious group that worships the ancient Egyptian gods. The story of Amun-Ra would be theirs. And Christians generally--especially given the specific rejection of Egyptian gods in the book of Exodus--would not use that story to shape their corporate identity.

If these symbols direct us neither to the deity of Christianity nor to the identifying stories of Christianity, then we would have a good argument for excluding them from Christian worship space.

This example from a unique scenario gives us some pattern that we might apply to the discussion of other symbols, like the American flag.

What does the American flag stand for?

I have heard several answers to this question. A nation. Democratic values. Fraternity (red), equality (white), and liberty (blue)--if we want to borrow from the French. Valor, blood, sacrifice, bravery, integrity, vigilance, perseverance, justice--if we take a few other suggestions about the three colors. Honorable military service. Freedom. Military protection--the flag begins as a banner of war. Patriotism (from the root "patrios" for fathers/ancestors and by extension "family").

How do these things connect to the faith of the Christian Church? For most of the Church's history, there was no such thing as a "nation" as we understand it today. Democracy is not addressed directly in the scriptures and core creeds of the faith. Freedom, equality, sacrifice, courage, and justice can all be found in the Christian faith. While the scriptural story recounts a great deal of military action--some of it directed by God--the teachings of Jesus and the experience of the early Church have an ambiguous or fraught relationship to military power.

What about the people whose story is behind the American flag?

If we date the independent identity of the United States of America to 1776, then the story of the nation is 250 years old. The story of Christianity--about 2,000 years old--is about 8 times the chronological length of the American story. If we say that American citizens are the ones who carry the story of America, then that story connects with about 340 million people presently; that's about 4.3% of the world population. Why do these numbers matter?

The faith claims of Christianity are claims upon the whole world and all of history. The broadest symbols of faith--the cross, the altar, the shepherd's crook, the bread and the cup--connect with every Christian 2,000 years back and forever forward, all around the world. They are common symbols of a spiritual unity in the Church which, though certainly obscured by human tribalism and sin, nonetheless is a goal of the Spirit of Christ and aspiration of the Church. They unite humanity under the umbrella of Christ's self-giving love.

The American flag is a symbol attached to the story of a small sliver of humanity bound to a particular time and a particular place. It is, by definition, a symbol whose provenance does not overlap with, say, the Nigerian flag, or the flag of the People's Republic of China, or the Argentinian flag. So by its symbolic power it divides humanity. It signifies a subset of humanity that cannot, on its own terms, be reconciled with other groups.

A congregation that wants to examine the propriety of a national flag (any national flag) in a Christian sanctuary must reckon with the contrast between the universal claims of Jesus Christ and the time- and location-bound claims of a national flag. What is the effect on a community that simultaneously observes a symbol of divine life with boundless mercy and grace for the whole world and a symbol of a human organization that divides and requires some level of violence to maintain its existence?

There is not an easy, pat answer to this question. Lest we think that the whole matter is contained in the placement of the flag in sanctuaries, be reminded that since the fourth century Christians have struggled with the relationship between the Church and the State. The present question simply serves to push this struggle front and center in a visible way. As both Christians and citizens who value our participation in secular society, however, it is good to wrestle with the matter.

----

To move the matter forward, I observe that both Christian symbols and national flags do more than represent ideas and stories. They also demand loyalty. On that idea, more soon.

~ emrys