Proto-Protestantism: Flags in the Church

25 February 2022

Flags in the Church

https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2021/11/the-history-of-national-flags-in-churches

The debate over flags in the Church is riddled with problems and clouded by false assumptions. There is a problem with the sanctuary model to begin with, the idea that a building is somehow a 'holy' place, a 'sanctuary' or that the front of the structure is some kind of focal point – a leftover of the unbiblical altar-theology of Romanism.

When the assumptions of the altar model are understood, the front-focal point where the pulpit, communion table, along with the baptistery or baptismal font are located – and in some theologies an 'altar rail' associated with Finneyite methods of evangelism and spirituality – then yes, it cannot be disputed, the placement of national flags in such a location crowded with and (rightly or wrongly) associated with the holy is in fact idolatrous.

While the First Things article picks up on growing concerns of nationalism and the potential idolatry of flags in the meeting, modern patriotic and mammon-obsessed Evangelicals are less likely to be concerned with idolatry – the absence of the flag is more a question of the aesthetics, related to their performance and entertainment-based models of worship. In that case the flags are more likely to be found in the foyer or flashed on a screen during the right moment.

The whole debate is frankly ridiculous and demonstrates a failure to apply the principles of Sola Scriptura and more importantly the question of Scriptural Sufficiency. The question regarding flags should not be one of if it's permitted but what would even drive you to ask the question in the first place? Why would you want to put up a national flag in the meeting? The extra-Scriptural assumptions behind the act are indicative of a certain type of theology and an ecclesiology fraught with problems all down the line.

Everyone would agree with the notion that the early Church would have set up a Roman legionary banner in their meetings is ridiculous. Of course, we could also point out that until the latter part of the third century they didn't have buildings and that buildings didn't really become normalised until after Constantine. And it was at this moment that nationalism and patriotism began to enter the Church – a fundamental shift in values, ethics, and theology.

The proponents of American flags in the auditorium often argue on the basis of America's Christian status – another fiction and theological error that is easily disproved on both exegetical and historical bases.

The article sites the fact that flags are appearing in international congregations but this is (I would argue) something new, a practice likely picked up from the corrupt American example. In most countries this is not an issue. It wouldn't even occur to Christians in most countries to put up a national flag in their meeting. It has no place there and only generates confusion and divided allegiance.

For those visiting the United States its offensive and I've interacted with those who have thought so. And frankly if Americans were attending a church in France, Italy, Russia, or Japan and witnessed their national flags in the meeting they would be offended.

The problem comes into play with the assumptions of sacralism and its confusion of state and culture with the Church and its identity. It's theologically and ethically dangerous and should be opposed at every opportunity. I have seen outright hostility to pastors who have attempted to remove flags from the meeting. The best thing to do is to make sure they're never put there in the first place.

And while the First Things article wants to sound its misguided alarm and voice of concern, the truth is it remains predominant in the American setting and is still quite popular in certain UK venues – where once again there are deep sacralist roots regarding Christian Britain and its supposedly Christian Empire.

I will always remember my trip to Glasgow and given the Irish tensions there (still very much present in the late 1990's), there was in the Protestant church I visited a robust unionism-nationalism and certainly monarchism on display. The Queen graced the bulletins, and the pastor had a larger-than-life portrait of Elizabeth II behind his desk. The man I encountered (a deacon I think) informed me in his thick Glaswegian brogue, "We're all Royalists here."

It was sociologically speaking somewhat comical (I was grinning throughout and fighting off the urge to laugh), but theologically repugnant.

The Jordanian, Indonesian, and Nigerian pastors cited in the article are simply wrong and misguided. I will grant that given their social milieu they are determined to demonstrate to the authorities that their churches are not subversive but in reality the Church of Jesus Christ is subversive. We challenge the claims of all nations – not on a political basis but on a spiritual one. We are colonies of Zion in their midst. Our citizenry has broken with their claims on us. Though we live among them, obey their laws, use their coin, we will not serve their system, worship their gods, or serve in their armies.

Obviously the Evangelical movement is opposed to these sentiments. The movement is opposed to the New Testament on many fronts and as such it sows confusion, with allegiance to flags, nations, and of course mammon.

We keep the laws of the land, pay our taxes, and are productive. We want to be left alone to pursue our work and fight our spiritual war. Many states and societies will not accept this as sufficient and consequently persecute the Church to varying degrees. Bowing to the state by incorporating its banners (which represent the sword) into our worship and identity is a grave error and represents misguided and myopic thinking by Church leaders. And to be blunt it's often an expression of heretical ideology.

Evangelicalism has always sought to be political and this is where it quickly loses its way. We challenge the claims of the state but our actions are not meant to be political – an impossibility in the Evangelical context which seeks the appropriation of political power. We don't challenge the powers that be as they are ordained by Providence but we will not bow to them and we should never invite these powers and their symbols into our meetings and/or incorporate them with our identity.

The question I've wrestled with for many years is whether a New Testament Christian should even attend a congregation with a flag on display. The problem is this, if you answer in the negative (which I am inclined to do) then you're left with very few options – so pervasive is this error. Most of the time I bend on this point and yet more than once I've regretted it.

The fact that Western Evangelical ministers do not see flags as idolatrous does not make it less so or less true. They likewise do not see their mammonism as idolatrous and yet it dominates their movement and is a permanent black mark on its legacy. For the First Things author to dismiss anti-flag sentiment as gnostic is dishonest and deliberately so – a case of ad hominem tactics.

The author (a professor at Hillsdale College) digs himself into a deeper hole by reviewing the history – a topic the Right-wing affiliated and increasingly Trumpite Hillsdale is known to pervert. Yes, the US Civil War overshadows a great deal of social and ecclesiastical practice – and confusion. One need only think of Thanksgiving Day for example which is really more connected to the Civil War and support for the Union's military cause than anything to do with Plymouth Colony and the Mayflower Pilgrims. The employment of heraldic shields in the Middle Ages (conveniently ignoring the Roman Catholic context) is no argument but a shameful testimony to the apostasy of the period and the utter confusion of the false construct of Christendom with the Kingdom of Christ – a period in which the so-called Church and Christian order embraced the sword and coin and abandoned the New Testament.

Westminster Abbey and Chartres are appealed to. If you've actually visited these places you'll know that they are not churches but symbols of power that are now (whatever they once were) little more than national shrines – symbols of the very idolatry that anti-flag proponents are rightly opposing and warning of.

Smith appeals to the Magisterial Reformation although in a sloppy and again disingenuous manner – ignoring the history leading up to it, and after it. And once again, the Scriptures play no part in his thinking. So much for 'Christian Worldview'. What we have is a philosophical construct wedded to a contrived historical narrative. Rather than view such questions through the lens of Scripture, the opposite is taking place and as such, Christians are misled and deceived. They're being taught a worldview for sure – just not one that can be called Biblical by any stretch of the imagination.

The Church does not want the US government or any government to defend our freedom. These categories are assumed to begin with and the entire article simply begs the question and thus by its own standards is fallacious. Providence assigns the powers that be. Whether their employment of the sword tangentially favours the Church or not is immaterial. The state does not promote or advance the Kingdom but rather its own interests and for its own idolatrous purposes. For the Church to look to and rely on the state in such a fashion is to fall into the same sacralist error that has dominated since Constantine and which has led to numerous horrors from the Inquisition to the Crusades, witch trials, and later the ostensibly Christian empires of Europe and the large-scale theft and death which they represent.

It was altogether a terrible and misguided article and it speaks poorly to the Christian testimony and even the academics of Hillsdale College.