Saturday, September 20, 2008

Understanding the God of the Pledge

Joe Carter and John Coleman are two traditionalist Christian thinkers who well understand the issue of civil religion and the Pledge of Allegiance and they've written excellent articles on the matter. See Carter's and Coleman's (which cites Carter's). Whatever the merits of Michael Newdow's legal case, and whatever the policy merits of keeping God in or taking God out, it's important to understand what "under God" means. And it's not under the Christian God or even under the "Judeo-Christian" God, but rather under the God of the American Civil religion, which is under the God of Jefferson, J. Adams and Franklin (who thought Hindus and Muslims worshipped the same God Jews and Christians do). And they in turn whether they consciously knew it (arguably they didn't) followed Rousseau's plan.

Carter notes something profoundly important. There probably ARE many Christians who DO think it's under their God. And they are either ignorant or fooled. This same dynamic existed during the Founding era when the first four Presidents spoke to a Christian populace speaking as though they worshipped the same God. And then spoke to Native Americans...and acted as though they worshipped the same God (the "Great Spirit"). Carter writes:

America has done a fine job of incorporating Rousseau's "dogmas of civil religion", keeping them "few, simple, and exactly worded." We have restricted such sentiments to the most unobtrusive areas, allowing "In God We Trust' to be printed on our coins and the phrase "under God" to slip in our Pledge of Allegiance (which, curiously, isn't a pledge of "allegiance" to God but to a flag). We allow recognition for a "Divinity, possessed of foresight and providence" but what we don't allow is the recognition of the Christian God. And that is what should give Christians pause.

There is a vast and unbridgeable chasm between America's civil religion and Christianity. If we claim that "under God" refers only to the Christian conception of God we are either being unduly intolerant or, more likely, simply kidding ourselves. Do we truly think that the Hindu, Wiccan, or Buddhist is claiming to be under the same deity as we are? We can't claim, as Paul did on Mars Hill, that the "unknown god" they are worshiping is the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. The Pledge is, after all, a secular document and the "under god" is referring to the Divinity of our country's civil religion. Just as the pagan religion of the Roman Empire was able to incorporate other gods and give them familiar names, the civil religion provides an umbrella for all beliefs to submit under one nondescript, fill-in-the-blank term.


Coleman recognizes that "under God" is a quasi-secular, not an authentically biblical idea. But the irony is the quasi-secular thinkers of the Founding era (America's key Founders) were the ones who gave us this generic civil religion because they thought "under" a generic "God" was a glue that could hold society together. Now the secularists like Newdow are on the other side. As he writes:

That is why, for generations, the Michael Newdows of this world recognized that acknowledging a generic higher power was helpful, not harmful to the citizenry. It held the nation together. It calmed the populace. It united us under a creed. To the irreligious (like many of our Founders) hollow recitations of Under God would seem paltry penance for the benefits afforded by state religion's civil unity.

To the devout, however, "under God" may pose a more serious moral threat. One of the most basic tenets of both Judaism and Christianity is Yahweh's statement in the Ten Commandments, "Thou shalt have no other Gods before me;" yet every day millions of Christians, Muslims, and Jews stand first, not to pray to the God of Mohammed or of the Cross, but to pledge allegiance to the god of city, state, and country.


Both articles demand serious thinking. Make sure you check them out.

14 comments:

bpabbott said...

Jon,

I have a rather technical question. Why is the God of Pledge interpreted to be the God of the Declaration. Is there evidence that those who legislated the change intended such?

Ben

p.s. I think Charles (?) raised this same question on another post.

Jonathan Rowe said...

I think you have to look at the larger picture -- the idea of appealing to a generically defined God as ultimate authority has a massive tradition in American history starting with the Declaration of Independence.

bpabbott said...

Ok, but regarding the practice of interpreting the law as it was intended. What God did those in 1954 intend?

Don't get me wrong, I like the idea that the God in the pledge and in the Declaration are the same, but was that the intent of those who wrote and ratified the change to the Pledge?

Jonathan Rowe said...

I think it meant civil religion for the sole reason that the tradition was so powerful the lawmakers chose to use generic God language. If they wanted the God to reference "Christian" language they could have used Trinitarian language. And if they wanted "Judeo-Christian" they could have said Jehovah or Yahweh.

bpabbott said...

Good points!

Thanks Jon

Tom Van Dyke said...

And if they wanted "Judeo-Christian" they could have said Jehovah or Yahweh.

"God" works better, Jon. The theological argument would be that although some Founders thought they were inventing, discovering, or deriving some new God of the Enlightenment, it still looked pretty much the same as the one found in Genesis.

When it came to put that God into practice---as in being the source of human rights, divine providence and as the D of I puts it, the Supreme Judge of the World---back in more reasonable days, such ambiguity was not only tolerable, but desirable.

[And to my colleague EAI, I am unsure that Buddhism recognizes a Supreme Judge of the World. But the Founders did, so pls advise.]

bpabbott said...

Tom: >>"God" works better, Jon. The theological argument would be that although some Founders thought they were inventing, discovering, or deriving some new God of the Enlightenment, it still looked pretty much the same as the one found in Genesis.<<

But *not* the same. The God of the Founders is more inclusive than that of Genesis.

Tom, do you have evidence that the Founders wished to exclude particular interpretations of God?

Tom Van Dyke said...

No. Do you have any evidence that the Founders had a credible understanding of comparative theology?

Until you answer that question affirmatively, Ben---with evidence--please butt out. Your comments are welcome, but your participation is probationary.

bpabbott said...

Tom: "No. Do you have any evidence that the Founders had a credible understanding of comparative theology?"

This blog is respective of the Founders view.

What *your* view of credible theology might be is unknown to me, but it is irrelevant.

It is clear that the founders view was much more inclusive than would be tolerable by the contemporary politics of today.

Phil Johnson said...

I asked three Christian their thoughts of the god of the pledge.
.
One said, jesus Christ. One said, whatever god any one believes it to be. The other said, the supreme being--the creator. For each of them, it is the god of the Bible.

bpabbott said...

Phil,

As the majority of our citizens belief the constitution explicitly frames our nation as a Christian one, you simple survey does not surprise me.

--------------
Sixty-five percent of Americans believe that the nation's founders intended the U.S. to be a Christian nation and 55% believe that the Constitution establishes a Christian nation, according to the “State of the First Amendment 2007” national survey released Sept. 11 by the First Amendment Center.
--------------

It worries me that the founding principles of our nation may not endure if they have no enduring value to our citizens.

Phil Johnson said...

Postmodernists have learned enough about how communicaition works to frame their presentations whether they know they are doing that or not.
.
Our society is being represented (re-presented) to us as though everything is put inside the framework of Christianity. We have become a Christian nation for all intent and purposes. Regardless of anything else, George Washington was a Bible believing born again Fundamentalist Christian long befor Men like C. I. Scofield ever came along. He went up front in that Little Brown Church in the Wildwood when he was but 4 years old--just days after he cut down the cherry tree.
.
Doubt this fundamental truth about America's Founding Father and risk your soul.
.

Phil Johnson said...

.
Maybe this video will speak to someone?
.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O02yAAmU3Ww
.

bpabbott said...

Phil,

Wow! ... that clip is *way* over the top! ;-)

At least I hope so!