* I was part of a church in which there was some controversy generated by the decision to remove the American flag from the worship area of the church. I wrote the following to give my perspective. Hopefully its reasoning and use of Scripture may be of help to others. (Note: The picture below was not from our church.)
1.
How will this controversy serve the cause of the
gospel of Jesus Christ? After the
discussions and decisions, will we love Jesus more? Will we be more excited about the trans-national kingdom of
God which is bigger than any one nation?
Will we have a greater commitment to unity and peace in the body of
Christ? Will we have a greater
zeal for the lost who do not know Christ Jesus and are, therefore, under the
wrath of God? If controversy
causes us to dig deeper into Scripture and to reason in a way that is more
gospel-centered and Spirit-filled, then the controversy will be worth it. If not, then we will have wasted this
controversy—wherever the flags are placed.
2.
There are many things God wants us to do in
worship: read the Scriptures, preach the Word, pray, confess our sins, sing,
affirm our faith, bless one another with benedictions, give to one another for
physical needs, participate in the Lord’s Table with purity and unity… these
things we do in the name of the risen Savior, Jesus Christ. Therefore, our worship services are
Christian in nature—whatever flags may be present or not present.
3.
We are not given a specific pattern for a
worship service or are we given specifics as to what the surrounding
environment should look like in a worship service. Therefore, there seems to be some freedom as what the
surroundings can look like. If we
have the choice to decorate our surroundings for worship (and not all have this
luxury) our decisions should be made on the basis of biblical principles. Does the architecture and environment
“speak of the gospel?” For
example, we should not purposefully adorned the walls of the sanctuary with a
Nike “swoosh” logo—not because there is a specific verse that says not to do
this. Rather, such a logo would
send the wrong message for those who are gathered for worship—we are gathered
to worship Jesus as the church and not as a marketing demographic. We do adorn the sanctuary with a cross
because this is one of the central symbols of the love of God displayed in
Jesus Christ. We want to follow in
Paul’s footsteps and “boast in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ” (Galatians
6.14).
4.
Architectural space is not simply neutral. The Reformers recognized this. The following is from Presbyterian
theologian Bryan Chapell in his book Christ-Centered
Worship:
Structures
tell stories. Martin Luther knew
this when he designed the first Protestant church in Torgau, Germany. Prior to the construction of this
chapel for the castle of Luther’s protector, the Elector John Frederick I,
Protestant services were held mainly in churches that were formerly Roman
Catholic The main architectural
change that occurred when Protestants took control of such churches was the
replacement of a cross on the spire of the church with a rooster, symbol of the
new dawn of the Reformation. And
it was not rare in the competing tides of Reformation times that if Roman
Catholic forces returned to power, they would replace the rooster with another
cross.
Each
faith movement signaled its control by the changed “hood ornament” most obvious
to all in the town or region, but the basic architecture of the church changed
little. Thus, when Luther had the
opportunity to design a church that would reflect the new perspectives of the
Reformation, he made sure that the basic
structure of the church would convey the gospel story he wanted to tell. No structural change would have been
more obvious to sixteenth-century worshippers than the placement of the pulpit.
In deliberate contrast with the Roman Catholic practice of placing the pulpit
at the front of the congregation, Luther arranged for the pastor to preach
among the people. The pulpit was
at the center of the long wall of the worship sanctuary. In addition, the altar, while still
located at the front of the church, was no longer separated from the people by
screens that had designated sacred space for clergy alone.
Luther
preached “the priesthood of believers,” and his structures conveyed the same
message. The placement of the
pulpit silently explained that the preacher was not more holy than the
people. He ministered among them
because all were fulfilling holy callings as they served God in their
occupations for which he had gifted them.
The architecture of the altar “said” there was no need for priestly
intercession or separation, since everyone had equal and immediate access to
God. The early Calvinistic
churches of the French Reformation pushed the idea further by putting the
pulpit in the center of a circled congregation. This structure not only symbolized the priesthood of
believers, but also asserted the centrality of the Word in Christian worship.
I
do not mention these architectural details in order to mandate designs for
church architecture. In fact, the
various ways in which the Reformers expressed their views can also argue for
the liberties in church architecture that modern Christians have obviously
exercised. But such freedom is
best applied when we have some sense of the story we are trying to tell, and
this requires understanding our place in God’s unfolding plan for his Church.
Again, the issue, as Chapell
states, is not slavishly following Luther or Calvin but, rather, to consider
what elements of the gospel-story are we attempting to communicate with our
architectural space. What are we
saying with the presence of the American flag? What are we communicating by its absence? Does the gospel message shape our
practice? What biblical principles
are we attempting to use in our decision-making process.
5.
Reformed Pastor Douglas Wilson writes:
If
the church places an American flag in the front of the sanctuary, this becomes
part of our sacred architecture, and therefore says something. It becomes a shaping influence. Important questions should come
immediately to mind: What is this
saying? And is it scriptural? It should not be too much to ask for
some kind of scriptural agreement with what we are saying before we say it. Placing a flag in the sanctuary has
many possible implications. It
could convey the idea that we claim some sort of ‘favored nation’ status. It could imply we believe that the
claims of Caesar extend into every space, including sacred spaces. It could imply that our version of
Christianity is similar to some kind of syncretistic ‘God and country’
religion, where patriotism and religion are one and the same.
What is the biblical or theological
argument for including the American flag in a worship service space? What biblical principles are being
upheld by the presence of the American flag?
6.
One of God’s goals in Christ Jesus is to
transcend ethnic, cultural, and national distinctions. Consider Ephesians 2.14-16
For he himself [Christ] is our
peace, who made both groups into one and broke down the barrier of the dividing
wall, by abolishing in his flesh the enmity, which is the law of commandments
contained in ordinances, so that in himself he might make the two into one new man, thus establishing peace,
and might reconcile them both in one body to God through the cross, by it
having put to death the enmity.
Consider Colossians 3.11 which
speaks of the renewal in Christ Jesus, “a
renewal in which there is no distinction between Greek and Jew, circumcised and
uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave and freeman, but Christ is all, and
in all.” One Bible commentator
has written of this verse:
In contrast to these artificial, earthly distinctions, Paul said,
“Christ is all, and in all” (3:11b).
The new distinction is Christian/non-Christian, rather than nationality,
race, religious background, or economic distinctions.
7.
The Old Testament as well speaks to this issue
of the eventual blessings of the nations—all of them—as they participate in the
reign and rule of God (Genesis 12.3; Psalm 22.27; 117.1-2; Isaiah 2.1-4). Isaiah 19.24-25 is an especially clear
passage which speaks of how the people of God will no longer be just Israel but
will also encompass even Israel’s enemies (Egypt and Assyria) on equal
footing. Christopher Wright, an
evangelical Old Testament scholar, has written:
The identity of Israel will be merged with that of Egypt and
Assyria. In case the implications
of verse 24 was not clear enough, the prophet makes is unambiguous (not to
mention scandalous) by applying to Egypt and Assyria descriptions that hitherto
could only have been said about Israel…The shock of reading ‘Egypt’ immediately
after ‘my people’ (instead of the expected Israel) and of putting Israel third
on the list is palpable. Yet there
it is. The archenemies of Israel
will be absorbed into the identity, titles, and privileges of Israel and share
in the Abrahamic blessing of the living God, YHWH.
8.
Another Old Testament passage to consider is
Isaiah 56.7
Even those I will bring to my holy mountain
and make them joyful in my house of prayer. Their burnt offerings and their sacrifices will be
acceptable on my altar; for my house
will be called a house of prayer for all the peoples.
The context of this prophecy is about
the inclusion of “foreigners” (Isaiah 56.3, 6) in the people of God. Even those formerly excluded from the
worship of God from among the “peoples” will be granted access. Jesus takes this passage very
seriously. He quotes this passage
when he is clearing out the temple (Mark 11.17). So in the New Covenant where is the “house” of the
Lord? The church is God’s temple,
God’s building (1 Corinthians 3.9; Ephesians 3.19-23; 1 Peter 2.5). The gathered church in the New Covenant
should reflect this universal reality of God’s kingdom. His people are not isolated to one
nation—his kingdom is trans-cultural and includes all the peoples. He still desires that his house be a
house of prayer for all the peoples.
9.
New Testament scholar Greg Beale writes regarding
the heavenly worship scenes in Revelation chapters 4 and 5:
John intended the readers to see
what is told of in the vision [Rev. 4-5] as a heavenly pattern that the Church
is to reflect in its worship rather than the other way around (just as the heavenly
pattern of the tabernacle shown to Moses on the mountain was to be copied by
Israel in the construction of their own tabernacle)
It is good to remember that this heavenly
vision of worship stresses the international character of God’s people who have
been purchased by the blood of the Lamb
Worthy are you to take the book and to break
its seals; for you were slain, and purchased for God with your blood men from every tribe and tongue and people and
nation. (Revelation 5.9)
10. In
light of all this above our worship space ought to reflect and not contradict
this international focus of the people of God. To enter into the sanctuary
without the American flag symbolizes that we worship as the trans-national
Church—the international people of God bought by the blood of Jesus. Our worship space does not send mixed
signals in this regard. Rather,
our architectural space devoted specifically for corporate worship conveys a
significant gospel-truth in this regard—the church of Jesus is universal, for
all peoples.
11. However
much we may love our country and its flag, our allegiance and love for our
Savior, Jesus Christ should so far exceed it that our love for Jesus makes all
other loves pale in comparison.
Consider how Paul speaks of his nationality and upbringing in
Philippians 3.5-6. He can point to
a proud heritage as being of the nation of Israel and especially of the tribe
of Benjamin. He was a “Hebrew of
Hebrews”; a Pharisee full of zeal.
And yet when Paul begins to consider Jesus Christ is speaks of the
“surpassing value of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord” and counts everything else
as “rubbish.” Paul did not hesitate to use his Roman
citizenship when it helped further the gospel message (Acts 16.36-40;
22.25-29). He would even use his
background as a Pharisee as credentials to further the gospel (Acts
23.6-9). But over all these
allegiances Paul’s first allegiance and love was to Christ. This should be our first allegiance and
love.
12. Good
Christian men and women can disagree on the issue of placing the American flag
in a worship sanctuary. This
disagreement, however, should not disrupt the unity in the body of Christ. Ephesians 4.1-3 is still the Word of
God and ought to be heeded as we seek to put on its commanded virtues:
Therefore I, the prisoner of the Lord, implore you to walk in a manner
worthy of the calling with which you have been called, with all humility and gentleness, with patience,
showing tolerance for one another in
love, being diligent to preserve the
unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.
13. Differences
of opinion on matters such as these should be placed in the category of Romans
14. In Romans 14 the issue was one
of eating meat or not eating meat.
Also, there were those upholding special religious days and others
treated all days equally. Paul’s
counsel is instructive for us:
One
person regards one day above another, another regards every day alike. Each
person must be fully convinced in his own mind.
He
who observes the day, observes it for the Lord, and he who eats, does so for
the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who eats not, for the Lord he does
not eat, and gives thanks to God.
For
not one of us lives for himself, and not one dies for himself; for
if we live, we live for the Lord, or if we die, we die for the Lord; therefore
whether we live or die, we are the Lord’s.
For
to this end Christ died and lived again, that He might be Lord both of the dead
and of the living.
But
you, why do you judge your brother? Or you again, why do you regard your brother
with contempt? For we will all stand before the judgment seat of God.
For
it is written,
“As I live, says the Lord, every knee shall bow to Me,
And
every tongue shall give
praise to God.”
So
then each one of us will give an account of himself to God.
In Romans 14.17 Paul reminds us what are
some of the central values that should characterize our lives:
…for the kingdom of God is not eating and
drinking, but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit.
14. We
should always keep in mind the distinction between God’s word and human
tradition. Human tradition is not
necessarily bad or inappropriate.
But it becomes a stumbling block to truth when it is elevated to the
position of equality with God’s word.
This was part of the failure of the Pharisees of Jesus’ time. Mark 7.1-13 is crucial reading in this
regard. I want to write very
carefully here so as not to be misunderstood. I am not saying
that those who want to have an American flag in the sanctuary are evil
Pharisees. I am saying that the
presence of an American flag in a worship sanctuary is a tradition—there is no
specific command to have such a flag in our worship service. It may be a good tradition that serves
biblical purposes—even if that has yet to be established or articulated. But allegiance to this tradition should
not over-ride the very clear commands of Scripture to love one another and
pursue unity in the body of Christ.
When our allegiance to human traditions—even good ones—trumps the Word
of God then that human tradition rightly falls under the censure of Jesus’
words in Mark 7.8—“neglecting the commandment of God, you hold to the tradition
of men.”
