Exodus leaders Alan Chambers and Randy Thomas, and Exodus media blogger Nancy Brown, frequently applaud the political activism of people like Alan Sears (Alliance Defense Fund), the Rev. Richard Land (Southern Baptist Convention), and D. James Kennedy of the Center for Reclaiming America, which acted as lead sponsor of Exodus’ 1998 national ad campaign.
In an April 7 article for Rolling Stone, writer Bob Moser uncovers an antidemocratic call to arms by Exodus’ friends at a recent conference at CFRA.
The conference is reported to have been awash in the religiosity not of self-sacrificial and peaceful Christianity, but of a violent martial cult.
From an opening hymn:
“Seize your armor, gird it on/Now the battle will be won/Soon, your enemies all slain/Crowns of glory you shall gain.”
To the casual observer, the conference’s pledge of allegiance reads like a threat of death and repression against anyone deemed to be a disbeliever:
“I pledge allegiance to the Christian flag, and to the Savior for whose kingdom it stands. One Savior, crucified, risen and coming again, with life and liberty for all who believe.” [Emphasis is XGW’s.]
As portrayed by Moser, the conference leaders’ agenda is simple enough:
Turn American public schools into Saudi-style madrassas. Base the nation’s court system on the Old Testament. Imprison homosexuals.
Among the conference highlights that Moser spotlights:
- Kennedy proudly commits blasphemy, declaring himself and his fellow militants “the vice regents of God.”
- Sears vows to abolish the separation between church and state — or, more specifically, his church and the state.
- David Limbaugh, liberal-bashing author and brother of Rush, declares war against the nation’s judges, declaring them to be atheists; partisan political petitions blast the Democrats even though Congress has approved more judicial nominees of Bush than of any other president since Jimmy Carter.
- Richard Land “takes particular aim at the threat posed by John Lennon, denouncing ‘Imagine’ as a ‘secular anthem’ that envisions a future of ‘clone plantations, child sacrifice, legalized polygamy and hard-core porn.'”
- Gary Cass, executive director of Reclaiming America, cheers a successful campaign to shut down an antibullying program in West Virginia schools.
- Rep. Walter Jones, R-N.C., calls upon fellow Christian militants to “save America!” by turning the nation’s churches into tax-exempt Republican political recruiting stations.
Moser briefly traces a sea of money flowing to these Dominionists, alleging that much of their power comes from donations by:
- Rich DeVos, founder of Amway and a GOP candidate for governor of Michigan;
- Tom Monaghan, founder of Domino’s Pizza and major donor to Focus on the Family; and
- Jean and Steve Case, formerly of AOL.
These allegations, while intriguing, are not substantiated.
Since 1998, I have been asking Exodus leadership to explain why it affirms celebrities who wage character assassination and theocracy against America’s families, communities, and diverse faiths.
I’m still waiting for an answer.
Exodus 20:4
You shall not make for yourself an idol, whether in the form of anything that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.
Hey Mike… I appreciate this site and all the work you do here, but I do think you’re veering a bit close to hysteria with your statements regarding the pledge to the Christian flag.
First off, this pledge is nothing new, and not a creation of Christian Reconstructionists, either. I attended a Baptist private grade school back in the early 1970s, and every morning, we first pledged allegiance to the U.S. flag, then the Christian flag, then the Bible. This pledge has no political purpose to it–it is meant as a spiritual creed of sorts–so to insist that it does is a gross mischaracterization of its intent.
Christian theology teaches that true life and freedom comes through a relationship with Jesus Christ, and the statement “life and liberty for all who believe” is meant solely in that context. The pledge looks heavenward, and is not meant as a political statement nor some sort of “Secret Codewords Of The Christian Taliban.” To insist otherwise would be lying, quite frankly.
While I agree that Christian Reconstructionism is a dangerous (and frankly, unbiblical) philosophy, there are plenty of other more legitimate examples to provide about its ultimate aims. The pledge to the Christian flag is simply not one of them.
While I’m certainly no friend of the religious right, let me add here that Christian Reconstructionists have every right to push their philosophy in the free marketplace of ideas, and we as GLBT people–whether of faith or not–have every right to counter those arguments and show their potential destructive effects: the curtailing of free speech, privacy, etc. And, as much as I hate to say it, they have every right to seek to influence public policy and lawmaking, just as much as we do. It’s how the system works, quite frankly.
If their ideas gain traction, then we as the GLBT community will only have ourselves to blame, since we didn’t do a good enough job of moral persuasion. (Which is one of my issues with the GLBT community right now… we don’t know how to speak to the average Christian person in a language they understand.)
Chris,
I appreciate your constructive criticism regarding the flag and pledge. Coming from a Catholic and Mennonite background, this was the very first I’d heard of it, and in the context of the other goings-on at the conference, I think it’s understandable that observers would interpret the pledge as Moser (and I) did — unless those who voice the pledge make an explicit effort to defend the life and liberty of those whom they deem to be nonbelievers. I don’t see them doing that. If they object to being misinterpreted, then I think it is they who need to clarify their communications.
I agree with you that non-religious-rightists would have themselves to blame if the religious right took over America. The apathy of the general public and the media toward liberty — including freedom of religion — sickens me. It seems to me, sometimes, that most of the country would prefer to sit at home and escape from problems — such as crime, divorce, job losses to better-educated nations, terrorism, sprawl, pollution, global warming — through TV or the Internet, instead of claiming personal responsibility and holding their elected officials accountable day by day, issue by issue.
Hi Chris. It is the first time I too have heard the pledge; however, the flag itself has been used for white nationalist groups in the past–white Christian heritage. There is a large nationalist compound here that has always used the flag, so I see it as a symbol of racism personally. That does not mean that other groups do use it in a legit manner, but it has always represented a certain worldview. It is also somewhat creepy having a flag that represents a religion–it reminds me of warfare, and that is probably why it works with militaristic speech.
From a rhetorical standpoint, the pledge is disturbing. Let’s look at the individual componants. “I pledge allegiance to the Christian flag, and to the Savior for whose kingdom it stands. One Savior, crucified, risen and coming again, with life and liberty for all who believe.”
The savior does not come first–it is allegiance to the worldview and the flag itself (definately an idolistic thing). The savior comes second. The other thing that is creepy is that life and liberty is only “for all who believe.” DOes that mean that life is not something that should be allowed to the unbeliever. Freedom only comes to believers? This is disturbing from an outsider’s view. These people seem to think that American values of life and liberty only belong to the Christian. Now, it may be that it is referring to the coming again, but it is being said in terms of a national type of conference and seems to be applied to the US. This pledge(and why does there need to be a pledge anyhow?)is a very disturbing thing to some people.
Just so that you do not think I am making it up about nationalist use of the symbol, here is a website where the flag is mentioned right away in reference to racist acts: https://stop-the-hate.org/king.html
Also, go to many Christian Identity sites and you will see reference to the flag.
I grew up in private (Fundamentalist) Christian schools and we started everyday with the pledge to the American flag, the Christian flag, and the Bible (“I pledge allegiance to the Bible, God’s Holy Word, I will make it a lamp unto my feet and a light unto my path and will hide its words in my heart that I might not sin against God.”)
I have to say that I’d never given much thought to the pledge to the Christian flag before until this.
Re: the topic (the overall topic, not the flag issue) – it’s frightening. On the other hand, it sounds like more of the same of what I was raised with. It’s only scarier now because our President seems to support these ideas.
Annika,
I like the Bible pledge that you quote — it’s poetic, literally scriptural, and spiritual.
Kennedy’s use of the term vice-regency is standard nomenclature for Reformed theology. It refers to the responsibility God gave humankind over the creation. The usual political context, however, is with respect to so-called creation care as a basis for Christian Environmentalism.
Dominionism doesn’t own the term inside of Reformed thought. The term needs to be taken into the already/not yet framework proposed by the Dutch theologian Gerhardus Vos. We ought to take take care of creation but the fall frustrates this effort (the already part). We anticipate the ultimate re-creation when Christ returns where this is done perfectly (the not yet part). This illustrates the holistic nature of Reformed thought where salvation is not limited to personal salvation but extends to the entire created order. Co-regency is unfortunately an inflammatory term. Stewardship is preferable in my opinion.
Rich,
Thanks for the added information. Given the feedback, this page may be headed for a rewrite (with credit given to the commenters).
In the meantime, I welcome further feedback.