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
No comments:
Post a Comment