Fellow Brits and Commonwealth citizens of r/reformed...
How are we feeling about the public Oath of Allegiance to the King on Monday? My personal instinct is no way, I'm extremely bothered by the oath of allegiance to the flag that the US does and it feels obviously wrong to me to swear allegiance to anyone or anything but God. I'm kind of surprised at Welby and the bishops for going along with the idea.
Would love to hear other perspectives though! I'm not really a monarchist or a republican, more of a fascinated history nerd, so I will be watching the coronation with much interest, but this oath of allegiance thing has brought out my nonconformist church upbringing, that's for sure.
Posted May 4, 2023, 11:59 AM UTC
2861
I know you are not directing your question to Americans, but I thought I'd throw my $0.02 in.
Allegiance is simply "loyalty or commitment of a subordinate to a superior." There's nothing inherently idolatrous about that. Furthermore, allegiance to king or country isn't meant to be absolute. The American pledge actually has a line that says "one nation, under God," and I find that similar to the line in the new testament "children obey your parents in the Lord." There's a hierarchy of allegiances in everyone's life. That doesn't mean that God can not and should not be at the top, right?
Oh that's interesting. I really wanted to hear from people who are positive about oaths in this sense so thanks for the perspective! It's a very reasonable way to look at it.
I guess I see oaths of allegiance or loyalty to authorities as being quite dangerous - like the Chinese government insisting on photos of Xi Jinping being displayed in churches (although I recognise that in the US the flag etc isn't mandatory the way these things are in China). I do believe it's right for me as a Christian to be subject to the governing authorities and to work for the good of whatever country I live in, but my loyalty is not really for them to have, because I believe it will inevitably clash with my loyalty to God.
To be fair some of this is probably my own personal attitudes based in a) having been an immigrant most of my life and not having much loyalty to one place and b) parental teaching that I was never, ever to make a promise that I wasn't absolutely 100% going to keep ('let your yes be yes and your no be no' etc). I can see how feeling you are a part of your country and wanting to be earnest about it would give a different perspective, though.
I think Daniel can be very instructive on the relationship between God and government. Daniel is a citizen of his nation and loyally submits to many things (and benefits from it), even at the cost of other things, like his own name. Still we see clashes. I think it’s notable that he doesn’t choose to not submit and participate as a citizen in order to avoid clashes, but rather in the instance where loyalty to God or the governing authorities do clash, worship wins for him every time. He obeys the state until the state oversteps on worship and obedience of God.
Where the line of state overreach is a matter of contention. But it’s still helpful in terms of understanding that being loyal and pledging allegiance to state and God are not totally dichotomous, but God is still the highest authority.
(Am American too, fwiw)
Edit: final thought: In terms of the actual act of swearing allegiance in a live stream? No that’s silly. Lol. I’m pretty irreverent when it comes to those things. But the heart alignment of allegiance, of praying for the state and seeking the good of the nation - in worship and obedience to Christ? Yea I’m for that.
The Westminster Longer Catechism actually applies the fifth commandment in this case, "all superiors in age and gifts; and especially such as, by God’s ordinance, are over us in place of authority, whether in family, church, or commonwealth."
One could argue that they ought to swear allegiance to the king.
Holy smokes, really? I think I just took a scruple on the WLC... this sounds like a supremely bad idea, and extremely subjective to boot...
Why? I don't read it as commending us to submit in all things to all who are superior to us in any gift. It seems simply to commed us to submit to those more gifted than us in a particular area to submit to them in that particular area. And why wouldn't we?
A wise workman heeds the advice of a more seasoned workman.
I have concerns about it being an oath, not that it’s one of allegiance. I’d happily state that my allegiance is with the King, I just won’t make an oath about it.
What's wrong with making oaths? What about marriage vows or church membership vows?
I agree with this. We are American living in Canada, and I feel a lot less iffy about something like the Pledge of Allegiance than I do about the Canadian national anthem (which we sing at co-op). With the American pledge, in addition to your reasoning, allegiance (under God) is something I do have the choice and power to give regardless of my background. When we are singing "Oh Canada, our home and native land..." that is objectively false for my family.
I have seen the objection that pledging allegiance to a flag is stupid, but to me that is just symbolism for pledging allegiance to the nation and the ideals it was founded on. To me that seems far less weird and gives more room for autonomy in deciding what that allegiance means in practical matters than pledging allegiance to a specific person.
I don't know what the content of the oaths are, but I do know that we don't plan on joining any of the coronation festivities here. We aren't real Canadians anyway. ;)
I have dual citizenship with Canada & would never think of it being my home & native land. I’ve only visited it twice - one of which I even remember. Though I never thought of it as lying the few times I’ve sung it. Interesting…
Though this does also make me wonder: my dual citizenship paperwork says I swore allegiance to the queen of England (someone made an X signature on my behalf since I couldn’t even sit up at the time). I highly doubt it, but I wonder if I’ll get any updated King Charles stuff for that.
The standard form of an oath of allegiance in the Commonwealth realms refers to "{Her, His} Majesty {Queen Elizabeth the Second, King Charles the Third}, {Her, His} heirs and successors according to law", so you're swearing loyalty to the entire royal family.
Whoa, people still sing the national anthem? What is co-op?
(Question from guy who has lived in Quebec for the last 15 years... you rarely even see a Canadian flag here)
Homeschool group.
The thing about the pledge to flag was it was written by a socialist and Eisenhower added "under God" during the second red scare (1954) to signify a stance against Marxist ideals because conservatives saw them as godless. It was a statement against socialism and not a statement for godliness.
IMO, as Christians we should absolutely not be pledging an oath of loyalty or allegiance to anybody or anything except the Lord. We're first and foremost children of God and citizens of Heaven, all else is secondary. We should pray for our leaders that they act in accordance with God's will of command and conduct ourselves in a way that is reflective of our true citizenship. We should submit to their authority because God raised them up to that position. But we should not pledge loyalty to a state because of it's
infallibilty and most especially should not pledge loyalty to a godless state that acts contrary to Biblical values.That doesn't change the nature of the pledge as it is currently, though. There's nothing I'm it advocating socialism, and there is explicit admonition to godliness.
What about marriage vows? What about church membership vows?
The state isn't infallible. And it's also not godless.
Yeah, this was a typo. Thank you for catching that.
The nature of the pledge doesn't change just because "under God" was added to it. The nature of the pledge is still a statement with a quasi-religious bend of the knee to the state.
There's a difference between a vow and an oath. Vows are a personal promise. Oaths are a promise made before an institutional authority under which someone assumes an obligation and becomes liable to legal consequences for breaking that oath. There are no such consequences for breaking a vow.
Would you mind explaining this? I honestly don't know how you've come to this conclusion.
It changes for the better because the previous version did not explicitly confess the authority of God, while Ike's version does. I don't agree with your analysis of his motivations, but even if you're correct, it still has no necessary bearing on the conscience of the person making the pledge.
What's wrong with bending the knee to the state? If children can obey their parents in the Lord, they can do the same to the state. There's nothing inherently wrong with that. It's ok if you do not want to say the pledge, but there aren't any good reasons why Christians as a whole shouldn't do so.
Meaning this gently, I think you're mistaken here. To begin, I don't think your distinction is accurate. Even if it was, legal ramifications for breaking your word are not immoral. Furthermore, if it was wrong for Christians to make an oath, as you defined it, then they couldn't become police officers or join the military, and probably not even own a home to boot. Finally, the pledge isn't an oath by your definition either...
I get when people say America is godless. It is full of pride, lust, violence, and every kind of evil, and I don't intend to justify that. The reason I would say that despite that, we are not a godless country is twofold.
First, we are something like 65 percent Christian. The nation is the people, not only the institution, so I don't think all those brethren should be overlooked.
Second, I believe the founding ethos and the law of the land is implicitly Christian. Our forefathers were among the first to recognize that all men are equal before God. Yes, we blew it when it came to slavery and segregation, but we were also among the first to get rid of it, too. Our great grandparents also saved the world from the Nazis. And we're the only thing keeping Ukraine from becoming a grease spot. Most importantly, we just overturned a longstanding ruling that legalized the murder of our children. Has any country ever reversed course like that?
If the nature of an oath can't be deduced from its words, then what hope does anyone have to ever discern its nature?