Episode 70

A growing number of Americans are expressing anti-America sentiment, most recently in declaring the national anthem racist. The anthem, they say, contains references to the slave and was written by a slaveholder and is therefore fundamentally racist. Is any of this true? What is the history of the anthem and its author? What of the reference to the slave? Should we continue to sing the anthem, or should it be replaced? Join us on this episode of the Removing Barriers podcast to explore this topic and consider how we should respond.

The Star Spangled Banner O Long may it Wave over the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave.Thank you for tuning in to the Removing Barriers Podcast. I’m Jay and I’m MCG, and we’re attempting to remove barriers so we all can all have a clear view of the cross. This is episode 70 of the Removing Barriers Podcast. And in this episode, we will be discussing whether the United States of America National anthem is racist.

Here is Joy Behar of the view, explaining why she thinks it is. The national anthem does not appeal to black America for very good reason. Come up with a new anthem. I think the point was that it’s two, but it never appealed to read you the lines that you were talking about. No, I know no refuge could save the hiring and slave from the terror of flight or the gloom of the grave. In other words, don’t be escaping because you’re going to be. And the Star Spangled Banner and Triumph Duff Wave or the Land of the Free and the home of the breath black people do not consider that themselves. I don’t think he was a racist. He owned slaves. That’s how he got wealthy. So in order for black people to make their point, listen, this is a systemic racism going on in this country, and this anthem does not reflect our value. So we want to say this about our group and this is what they’re doing.

So before we get into that, let’s look at the history, Jay So, in 36, Francis Kotski said, then in that hour of deliverance and joyful triumph, the heart spoke and does not such a country and such defenders of their country deserve a song. And there the Star Spangled Banner was Bert,

is there more tell us what is the history of the national anthem? Dre. That was Francisco Key talking about the national anthem in but what actually happened is that it was written roughly 20 years before Francis Scott Key was a lawyer in Maryland. And at this time in the nation’s history, we were in the middle of the War of 1812. That was the second war that we had with the British Empire. So I think that when we’re talking about the history of the anthem, when we’re talking about whether or not it’s racist, context and historical context is important, the British gave the Americans an ultimatum to surrender or they would level Fort McKenry. This war had been going on at this point for what, two years or however long it’s been. And there were casualties on both sides, and there were prisoners on both sides. Initially, there was an agreement for an exchange of prisoners between the two parties at Fort McKenry. But the British Admiral laid down that ultimatum. The American troops, of course, did not agree to the ultimatum. And so what you have now is a fight. The Empire, pretty much through all they could at Fort Mclenry trying to level it, trying to capture it, because if they could capture Fort Mclenry, Maryland was pretty much theirs. And those men fought overnight to keep that flag flying, to keep the British at Bay. The following morning, the Royal Navy brought all of their Arsenal, their weaponry, their ships. They were going to attack. They positioned everything. On September 12, on September 13, they attacked. And the morning of September 14, Francis Scott Key awoke because he could hear all of the gunfire and the Cannon fire. Overnight, he awoke to see that the flag was still flying. Because if the flag wasn’t, that would mean that the American forces were defeated and that they had captured for Ms. Henry when he woke up that morning and he saw that the flag was still waving, he wrote the poem when he wrote it. It was a poem. It wasn’t necessarily the anthem at that particular time. When he wrote the poem, he had titled it The Defense of Fort McKenry. He published it a few days later on September 20. Sometime later, maybe weeks or so later, maybe months later, his brotherinlaw put it to music. When his brotherinlaw put it to music, it became what we know as the Star Spangled Banner. It didn’t become the national anthem until the 1030s. I think under Woodrow Wilson, I could be wrong on the President there. But under Woodrow Wilson because there was a lot of back and forth, a lot of controversy and other people felt like other songs should be the anthem for various reasons. But it didn’t become the national anthem until the 1930 or so. But now all of a sudden, in 2021, it’s racist. What in the world? It’s interesting that after the battle at Fort MC, Henry, the defense of Fort McKenry, the Treaty of Gantt was signed three months later. The Treaty of Gantt is what ended the War of 1812 between Britain and the US, the British Empire in the US. So I, in my personal opinion, don’t think that the Star Spangled Banner is racist. That’s the history of the Star Spangled Banner.

And I’m sure as we go through the podcast, we’ll flesh out what that means. But I think that when you listen to people like Joy Behar and all of the other women on The View talk about why it’s racist or why they think it’s racist. I would just like to preface and start to say that the context, the historical context is very important. What was happening at the time it was written is very important. All right, so let’s dive into it because some people do believe it is racist. Like we mentioned Joe Bija. She did mention that, and she did read part of a standard that she think might be racist.

So what exactly are the interpretation of those standards? Because a lot of folks don’t know. But the United States National anthem actually has four standards. We only normally sing about one, mostly when we hear the national anthem. That’s the first one. Also can you see by the Dawn’s early light what’s so proud we hail at the Twilight last gleaming Whose brought stripes and bright stars through the parious fight over the ramparts we watched were so gallantly streaming and a rocket’s red glare bombs bursting in air gave proof to the night that a flag was still there. Or say, Does that Star Spangled Banner yet wave over the land of the free and the home of the Brave? Right, right. Most folks seem to have any problem with that kind of sum up the history you just spoke about. The second standard says on the shore, dimly seen through the midst of the deep where the four hearty hosts in Jed silent repose. What is that? Which the breeze, as it fitfully, blows now conceal now disclose now it catches the gleam of the morning first beam in full glory reflect now shines on the stream. This the Star Spangled Banner or long made wave over the land of the Free and the home of the Brave. Quite honestly, I’ve never heard that standard song, but it’s so beautiful, isn’t it? Okay, let’s keep going.

The third stance seems to be the one where they have most of their problem with. And where is that band who so vauntingly swore that the havoc of war and the battles confusion, a home and a country should leave us no more. Their blood had washed out their fall footsteps. Pollution, no refuge could save the Herald and slave from the terror of flight nor the groom of the grave and the Star Spangled Banner in triumph wave over the land of the free and the home of the grave? And of course, the last time they say, oh, does it be ever when free men shall stand between their loved homes and the wars desolation blessed with victory and peace? May the heaven rescued land praise the power that had made and preserve us a nation, then conquer. We must when our cause is just. And this be our motto in God we trust and the Star Spangled Banner in triumph shall wave over the land of the free and the home of the Brave.

So why don’t we start with the third stance? Since that’s the one they have issues with. What is the proper historical contextual meaning of that standard? The opponents of the National Anthem have taken such a simplistic and incorrect view of this particular stanza. Just because the word slave appears in that stanza. It does not mean that they are upholding the institution of slavery, or they’re glorifying it, or like joy, Behar says, they’re threatening slaves and telling them, don’t go running because you’re going to be caught and killed. Now I am not turning a blind eye to the fact that there was an inherent hypocrisy, an inherent failure at the beginning of the United States to fight for the principles of Liberty and freedom while they still held African men and women and AfricanAmerican men and women enslaved and in bondage, no one’s turning a blind eye to that. I’m not doing that. What I am saying is that that stanza is not addressing the slaves that were in the country at that particular point. Historical context is important. The Revolutionary War was fought because we wanted to establish our own nation with better representation. I’m sure everyone listening will remember taxation without representation is tyranny. You can’t be taxed, which is exactly what was happening under the Crown. Among many other offenses. They were listed out in all of our founding documents as to why we wanted to separate and establish our own country. I think that one of the basic tenants, one of the basic elements of being an American, is the value of freedom and of Liberty. And again, I’m not turning a blind eye to the fact that there were slaves in this nation when the nation was established. But what I am saying is that this stanza is not inherently racist because of what it’s talking about. All of the stanzas are talking about the absolute miracle that it was that Fort Mclenry was not captured at that particular point of the battle. And three months later, of course, Francisco Key wouldn’t have known that when he penned the poem. But three months later, the war ended with the Treaty of Gantt and the British were defeated. They tried to come back and finish what they couldn’t finish. What was it, 50, 30 years prior, in the 1770s and 1812? What is that? 40 years? Am I doing my math, right? 30, 40 years. They came back and tried to finish what they couldn’t finish in the Revolutionary War, the Americans fought for their independence in the Revolutionary War. We won. So in the time between those two Wars, Britain did a lot of things to try and stifle or try to snuff out this fledgling nation. It was a fledgling nation. It was only what, 30, 40 years old at the time of their War of 1812. And so they would do a lot of economic for lack of better expression. Sanctions. They would seize ships. They would seize people who were American citizens and say, okay, you’re a British now and do all of these things that were provoking a fledgling nation trying to get on its feet. And then ultimately, we declared war in 1812. It was the Second War of Independence, if you would.

And so when you read the stanzas, I’m going to tackle this particular stanza. And where is the band that so vauntingly swore that the havoc of war and the battle’s confusion, a home in a country should leave us no more. Okay, if you’re reading it at face value, if you’re not reading it like the poem that it is, you might be led to think that they’re talking about slavery. If you spend your whole life in your entire world view thinking that everyone is after you and that this nation hates you and that the whole system is systemically racist. You’re going to look at this stanza and say, oh, this is talking about slavery. But let’s break down this stanza and see what they’re talking about. I just read the first three lines of that particular poem in modern day speak. What they’re actually saying is all you people who thought that you could bring war and kill us and destroy our home and our nation. Where are you at now? Where are you at now? That’s what those three lines are saying. Where is the band that so vauntingly swore that you can wreak havoc and destroy our people, destroy our land and leave us without a home in the country where you at now? That’s what those three lines are saying right there. Okay. The next one, their blood has washed out their foul steps. Pollution. Basically, they’re all dead. We defeated them. They’re defeated. They’re dead. So therefore a question was asked. Yes. The answer is the fourth line there. Where are they? They’re dead. They’re defeated, if not dead, defeated or both. Okay, that’s the fourth line. And then the next three lines or the next two lines, no refuge could save the hiring and the slave from the terror of flight or the gloom of the grave. The two words that we are hanging on here, I think that we’re hanging on here are hiring and slave. Okay. This is where historical context is important. The idea of a slave in this particular stanza, I believe, are the people who are willing to submit to British rule. There is this I don’t know. What is it a saying or is it a quote or something where Christian men are distinguished and that they would rather die on their feet than live on their knees? This is a country. This is a situation where men had given all of their effort, their lives, some of them their life’s blood, many of them their livelihood in order to fight for a nation that they believed should stand independent of the British Empire. They would much rather fight. They would much rather revolt. They would much rather die than to be subject to the Crown any longer. They would rather die than be slaves. That’s the mentality there. That’s the idea there. That’s the context.

They knew that if Fort by Henry fell, because remember, a month before this, the Capitol and the White House were on fire. The British had sacked DC a month before that. So they knew that if Maryland fell, the nation was pretty much done for it was only a matter of time, of course. But the nation was pretty much done for. And they knew that. And that’s why they held the line. They fought at Fort Mt. Henry to repel the British. Now I’m not pretending to be a historian. I’m sure there are people listening to this podcast and that are alive on the planet today that know a lot more in depth history of this nation than I do. But even a cursory search of this historical information will reveal to you that no one was talking about the slaves or anything of that particular nation. If they were speaking of slaves, they were talking about being slaves to the British Crown. That’s what they were talking about. Hireling is another word, a hiring. You’ll remember in Scripture where a hiring is described as someone who’s paid to look after the sheep. When the Wolf or the bear comes to scatter the sheep, that hiring is not going to give his life for the sheep, he’s going to take off and run. It’s the shepherd who cares about the sheep. It’s people who actually have skin in the game, people who are actually desiring for this nation to surge, who have given all of their all in order for this nation to stand. They’re the ones that are going to stand. The hiring is just going to go off and run. They’re not going to care about this nation. So Francis Scott key in writing this particular stance and lumps them all together. The slaves are people who are willing to submit to British rule. And the hiring are people who don’t care to fight for the country, who are just okay to let it fall into British hands at that particular point, those people, the stanza says, no refuge could save them. No refuge could save the hiring and the slave from the terror of flight or the gloom of the grave. In other words, there is nowhere for you to run. There’s nowhere for you to hide. This is a fight for people who are willing to lay down their lives for this new fledgling nation. That’s what, 30 years old, 30, 40 years old now that we are fighting for now, those of us on the other side of history, looking back at what happened, we can’t look at this particular stanza and say, oh, they mentioned the word slave. They must have been talking about the Africans there. Listen, I’m not demeaning the racial, the absolute sin that slavery was and is in this country. I’m not demeaning that, but at this particular point, I believe they had bigger fish to Fry. Please listen carefully. I’m not making one sin greater than the other. What’s the point? If you have bigger fish to fried, the British are coming to obliterate your country. You can talk about freeing the slaves and women’s rights and all of these different things if you want. But if you don’t have a country, none of that stuff matters because you’ll be under the Crown anyway, and you will not have any of those things. At least we’re fighting for a country where we can at least lay the groundwork to begin to address those things.

I think that those of us that are the beneficiaries of all of the battles and the hard won freedoms, the hard fought for freedoms that we are receiving. Now, I think we kind of look back and just kind of suck our noses and shrug our shoulders and think, oh, well, why didn’t they take care of this? And why didn’t they take care of that? And why didn’t they do this and this and this and this and that? And we’re failing to realize what the situation was. It’s like worrying about your cat when your hair and your house are on fire, put the fire out first, and then you can worry about your cat. It’s the same thing here. I think so. When he’s talking about hiring a slave, as I mentioned before, he’s talking about people who a are just willing to throw this new nation away, didn’t care about what they were trying to do, what they were trying to accomplish or B again. They didn’t have any skin in the game. They were just hiring. They’re just paid. Okay, it’s getting crazy. It’s getting real. Okay, I’m out. I don’t care British. You can have it. I’m out. That’s what he’s talking about. The reason why he said that again is because the people, the men that were fighting to keep that flag flying. They were the ones who repelled the British and kept them at Bay at that battle. The Americans had significant casualties. The British only had one men died to keep Fort Mcchenry out of British hands. That’s what he’s talking about in that particular stanza.

All right. You’re listening to the Removal Barriers podcast we are discussing. One of the staff Spangled Banner is racist. We’ll be right back.

Do you have the desire to earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the Saints? Answers in Genesis can help. They provide biblically sound books, CDs, DVDs, Homeschooling materials, VBS materials, online courses, digital downloads and the Answers magazine and more. Plus tickets to the Creation Museum and Ark Encounter. Go to the Answers Bookstore by clicking the link in the description section below. So you, too, can be ready to give an answer to anyone who asks the reason of the hope that is in you.

All right. So, Jay, we have just looked at their historical context of the verse. And honestly, sometimes poetry is not the easiest thing to interpret. So sometimes you look at poetry kind of okay. What exactly is it saying? But I do agree with you. It seems to be like a very far fetch grab to say, just because you mention Harold and Slave that it must be talking about African slaves being killed. And Joy Behar was right when she said that Francis Scott Key owned slaves. That’s a historical fact. But throughout his life, he was conflicted about the slaves that he owned very much like many people were. We tend to look back and think that this is a black and white issue for us. For them, it wasn’t so black and white. It wasn’t so black and white because of everything that’s entangled within the institution of slavery made it to be for Muddy waters. Now we can look back on it and be absoluteist and be. This is what needs to happen and all that. Yes. And we should. There’s right there’s wrong. There’s black, there’s white, there’s good. There’s evil. I get that. But the practical working out of that is not so black and white. It’s not so simple. There are institutions, there are policies, there are cultures, there are families. There are all of these things that are intertwined that need to be ripped out or at least taken apart carefully. You ever tried to build a deck, like a Jenga building or like a house of cards where you got to be very careful which jingle block you pull out or the whole thing comes tumbling down. It’s the same thing. You don’t want to throw the baby out with the bathwater. What America stood for and stands for to this day has written these founding documents is something to fight for. It’s something to strive for. And it’s unfair for people in the 21st century to look back at people in the 18th and 19th century who actually had to fight those battles and say, you didn’t do it right. You didn’t do this or the other. Instead, we should be looking back and saying, OK, this is what they did. This is what they were able to accomplish. This is what has yet to be accomplished. So let’s go about continuing the work, continuing to strive for those values that we hold as Americans in these founding documents in this anthem, instead of trying to tear it all down. And that’s where I have an issue, because everyone that seems to be talking about the nation being systemically racist are never proposing solutions that unite the country. Everything seems to be an effort to tear everything down. It’s like wanting to kill the pilot that’s flying your plane. You don’t like the pilot. I get that. But if you kill the pilot, if you kill the ones flying the plane, how are you going to land the thing? How are you going to fly the thing? You’re not a pilot. How are you going to do that? And so there’s a lack of Grace there. There’s a lack of reconciliation. There’s a lack of that there that really gets under my skin because I hate America. So because I hate America, everything has to be torn down mentality that I think is detrimental to everyone in the nation.

I think a big problem here is the rewriting of history. Yeah. Is that you look back and you say, okay, you ignore the good that some of these men have done, and you focus on the fact that they have done wrong. For instance, it’s looking back in Scripture and looking at the fact that Joseph was born full because he had a coat of many colors, and his father preferred him over his brothers, but not look at the fact that of all the good, he did as well when he was governor of Egypt or looking back at the fact that David killed you, Riar, and he did all these things to displease God. But then you don’t look at the fact of all the good that caused him to be King David that we know today right list goes on and on because he can look at Lot, who the Bible says that he went to Saddam and Gamora, I guess just to wrap it up in the sense that you look at these men and you see the negative. And yes, these men all slave, and that was despicable. And we can say that. Absolutely. But we’re going to also look and say, you know what, these men fought for, something that they believe in as well to give us the freedom that we enjoy today, we don’t have to exalt them because they were men just like we are. They were flesh and blood, and we don’t have to put them up and pretend like they are savior or anything. But at the same time, you can give them their props for what they did, right, surely, and also condemn them for what they did wrong. But we don’t have to tear down the system because no one is perfect. Exactly. No one is perfect. So that’s a good look at it. I think today we try to rewrite history so much, and I think it was Churchill who said if we don’t learn from history, we are doomed to repeat it. And I think that’s the big issue here.

That’s a really good point, MCG. That’s a really good point, because if you whitewash history, if you try to erase it, the following generations won’t know racism or they won’t know wrong when they see it. If they look in their past and everything is peachy keen and everybody has a beautiful face and no one did anything wrong and everything has been whitewashed. If you tear all of that down and you don’t present the people for who they were, flaws and everything, the following generation won’t be able to learn from that. And that is dangerous. That’s what’s dangerous. Yes, I do agree. No one is disputing the fact. And it has been said on this podcast before. If you go back to the episode where we did racial relation to the Church where we had our guest on Pastor Mike, he made it clear. And all of us agree that the country was born with a birth defect of racism. Yes. But I also believe that we have come a long way, a very long way. And I think this problem still persists for many reasons. Of course, we know that we have a sinful nature, and that’s one of the biggest reasons. Sure. The other reason Besides that, I honestly believe, is politics and politicians, they have an incentive to keep this going, so they keep on pushing this thing. It is evident based on what they promote. For instance, January 6, it was a bad day for the country. January 6 should not have happened. But January 6 is equivalent in my mind to the entire summer of Black Life matter depends on which side of the aisle you’re on. If you’re not rational and honest, you want to make January 6 be the worst thing that happened and ignore everything that happened during the summer. I condemn January 6, and I condemn Black Lives Matter on altifa and all the things that they did during the summer, burning down cities across this country. So I think the biggest thing here is, of course, we know the sinful nature of Manhattan, but also, I think politics have so much to play in this. So going back, I think that Joe Bear and many of these folks, honestly, deep down, know that the staff Bangladesh is at racist, but they cannot and will not disagree with their political affiliation. Sure. And that, to me, is intellectually dishonest and malicious because they know what it does to the country, what it does to the people, the culture, it rips the fabric apart. Absolutely.

So do you think the US should have multiple national antems based on all this is going on? We know that the NFL now is singing their so called black national antenna. Do you think the US should have multiple? Absolutely not. Absolutely not. The whole idea of the United States of America is for many people from different ethnicities, from different cultures, from different backgrounds to unite under certain values under certain principles. People don’t understand how unique that is in history, because even up to this day, most countries are ethnically homogeneous. Most of them are not all of them, of course, but many of them are like in many countries, everyone looks the same. Everyone has similar background, similar history, of course, that’s not to say all of them. But you look at countries, let’s say Japan, China, for example, this whole idea of people coming together from all these different types of countries that are not United by any particular ethnicity, not United by any particular culture, not United by any particular history that have come together. But they’re United by these values. They’re United by these ideals. That’s fairly new in history. I’m not saying it’s never been done. I’m just saying it’s fairly new in history. Many people call the United States the great experiment. They call it that to see if will that work? Because that’s not the norm in history. So this idea that we would have two anthems is completely antithetical to the idea of what America is. In many ways. I’m not even culturally American. Like, if you cut me, I will bleed red, white and blue. But I grew up with a different culture with different history, with a different language, even. And so I understand how important it is to preserve those elements of your being, of your history, of your identity. But if we’re going to come together and build this thing called America, which we’ve been trying to build for the past 200 something years, it’s unwise. It’s wrong to do so at the expense of the unity of the whole. So that’s why I don’t think there should be more than one anthem. It completely gets under my skin when I see people kneeling for the anthem or when they’re singing two different anthems at these events because it’s antithetical to what America is. And I wish that people who felt alienated by the anthem or by what they feel is the founding documents of this nation. I am willing to bet if I were a betting woman that they don’t fully know the history behind those documents, what they do know has been colored by what we’re thinking about what they did back then. And that’s not a true picture of what historical events actually happened. It’s what you said, MCG, where history is being forgotten and they are being taught an alternative historiography. The difference between history and historiography is history is what actually happened. Historiography is what we think happened or when we think about what happened and how we evaluate those particular events. That’s why I don’t think there should be a second anthem, but many people would say that it’s important to have the anthem in our cultural gatherings or in our spiritual gatherings, even like, for example, there are many churches that sing the national anthem on special days, in their Church services or in their Church gatherings.

Do you think that’s a good thing to do? What do you think about the anthem and Church services? Yeah. So let me adjust first, whether we should have multiple national anthem. I think absolutely not. I would agree with you. National anthems and flags. They are designed to unite people. We don’t need any more division in this country. We already divided Republican and Democrat, and we are divided black and white. And whether or not you stand with diversity and inclusion and equity, we shouldn’t be falling for all this division because when you talk to people, you realize that you know what? We’re not even that divided as a politician want to make us feel so. Should we have multiple nights? Absolutely not. No way. I normally wear the flag of my country of birth on my lapel when I wear a suit. Why? Because I am identifying myself as being from a nation in the Caribbean. So the flag identify me. I remember driving down the street in the community. I live on a major street and I saw someone in their car with a flag of my country on their feet that identified that person as being from the country that I’m from. So I did something I normally wouldn’t do as I took my window down and I shot out to him and asked him, hey, are you from such a place? And he said yes, and he said, Are you? Yes. And we start talking, where are you from? Where on the island are you from? Its identity is identification. We remove that. We say, okay, let’s give the black the old flag and the stuff. Then at a point we might as well divide the country and give the Blacks their own country and give the whites their own country. Because what else would go to unite us is the flag and the anthem unite us. So I think it’s ridiculous for us to say, hey, let’s have multiple national anthems. I don’t think it helps anybody. I don’t think anybody benefit from it, except probably for the walk few. But concerning the national anthem and Church, I have no problem with it. I think it has a place and as long as it’s done differently and in order and is not taken above and beyond where it should be. So we’re not worshiping country. We’re not exalting country above God. I have no problem with the ante and being played in Church or even Church folks being patriotic. I’m quite honestly, if Church folks are not going to be patriotic, who’s going to be in this country today? The country again is not perfect. But at least I believe this nation was burnt on Christian Foundation. I wouldn’t call it a Christian nation. I would disagree with folks on that, but at least he had a Christian on the Pinion and a Christian Foundation. So if Christians are not going to be patriotic, who’s going to be so I have no problem with Anton Planet Church as long as it’s in the rightful place. This is where I disagree with you.

Okay, let me ask you this. What is the rightful place of the anthem in Church services? Because if you ask me, in my opinion, I don’t think the anthem has any place in a Church service. I know that might be controversial with some folk. I still love you. We’re all brethren, but I personally don’t think that it has any place in the Church, but you said that in its rightful place. So what would be its rightful place when you say that? What does that mean? Well, I have no problem with traditions and as the tradition is not anti biblical. So therefore, July 4, you want to celebrate the independence of the country? I have no problem with the national anthem being song. September 11, patriotic Day. I have no problem with it. You talk about Memorial Day. I have no problem with it. As long as it is in the rightful place, the country is celebrating a national holiday. The anthem is in the rightful place. There is a song we move on. Of course, again, we don’t want to exalt it and make it like we go to Church and worship country and how far from we take it before we exalt it. Maybe I can’t give a concrete definition, but I believe I will recognize it when I see it. But I have no problem. If a Church is celebrating the independence of the country that the Church is in, or they celebrate some kind of national holiday, and they have the flag and they have the antenna beans Ong, I think it can be done differently. It can be done in order, and it can be done tastefully without making it seem like we’re going to Church to worship the flag in the country. So for me, the rightful place would be you want to deck that Church out in red, white and blue on Independence Day. By all means, I’m with that. You want people to be wearing red, white, and blue on that day. By all means, I’m with that. But when we start singing these patriotic songs, I think it takes the spotlight away from the one on whom the spotlight should be. Will you night on Sunday to worship the Lord Jesus Christ, to honor him, to lift him up high, to exalt him for his attributes, to compare ourselves to him and repent, where we need repenting and to glorify him, where he’s done the work of bringing about the fruit of the Spirit in our lives and to uplift each other in the word, encourage each other in our Christian walk. It’s purely a Christian thing. Christ did not come to unite people under the Star Spangled banner. Christ came to unite people under his banner. Under him. His banner over me is love, the song says. And so for me, when the Church services or when the Church takes on too patriotic of flair, we risk alienating people who for many reasons don’t necessarily identify with the Star Spangled Banner, although they do to some extent because they’re in the country, of course. But let’s say, for example, someone who is just immigrated from, I don’t know, from anywhere. I think the focus is on the wrong banner. Let’s just put it that way. I’ve heard preachers say from the pulpit that this is the greatest nation in the world. And if you don’t like it, you can go back to where you came from. The pulpit, from the pulpit. What in the world are you talking about? That’s not appropriate. That’s an elevation, something that ought not to be elevated. We’re ought to be elevating Christ. And so I think that there was a Church down in Texas. They had their choir stand up and saying, Make America great again. And the premise of the song, of course, was to make America great again, so that if we all turn back to Christ, and if the nation repeats, the nation can be great again, which that’s true. But when you sing that and the President at the time was Trump, that is purely overtly political. That is inappropriate. It shouldn’t have been done. And I think that perhaps they’re focusing on the wrong thing at that particular point. So in my opinion, if you want to deck the place out in flags and flowers and all of that sort of thing, that’s great. But to elevate it to the point where the impression is given that it’s more important than Christ and Christ is being compared to these things as though he were comparable to these things, as though these things were comparable to him. I think that’s where perhaps the line is for me. I don’t particularly like it.

Yeah. But patriotism and politics of being political is two different things, because I can say that decorate Church out with all red, white and blue can be off putting, just like the national anthem to some folks might be off putting. But at the same time, I think if you respect the country to which you’re going, because I can speak as an immigrant to this country, I came to this country and I went to a College that was very patriotic, and some of it was, in my opinion, out of ignorance. And some of it was just because they were happy and grateful to be Americans. So one of the things I experienced is that at least at the College, a lot of folks were surprised that I was patriotic to my country. And I’m like why those Patriots have only existed in the US. Right. So why shouldn’t I be patient to my country? I’m in your country, and I’ll be respectful of your country, respectful of the ante, respectful of the flag. Sure. But at the same time, I’m very patriotic to my country. And at the time when I was a citizen, that was where my allegiance lies. I can see what you’re saying there about the colors and everything, because if I walked into a Church and it was decked in, like, red and yellow, I’d be like, what in the world, you know what I mean? If the Chinese flag, I’d have an issue, but at the same time, that Church in Texas, I think that wasn’t necessary patriotism, that was being political. And I wouldn’t advise any Church to take a political slogan and put it to a song, even if the message of the song may be true, because you create barriers to others to PVC, because if the title of the song make Merry go great again, who’s going to listen to it? Only folks that agree that with Trump slogan, the only bag of country will listen to that. I’m not saying that the slogan, one that says it wrong or right. I’m not simply saying that if Make America great again slogan is offensive to somebody, why would they listen to that song? So I think the Church kind of took it a little bit too far, and that’s why I say it has its place when it’s done decently. And in order, if my Church had done that, I would have an issue with it. I would have probably gone to the pastor or the music director and asked about it because I don’t think that it has its place. Quite honestly, I don’t think Christians should be exalted any politicians. I don’t like it personally when I see politicians going to churches and making speeches on the Sunday morning or whatever and stuff like that. And I don’t care what side of the earlier on. No, I don’t think that’s appropriate, but that’s completely a different thing than to be grateful and thankful to God for the country that you live in and of a country where you were born. I think that has its place and it can be done decently in order, and we should be grateful. Anyone should say of their country. This is the greatest country in the world. Absolutely. There is not a country on this planet I’d rather be living on right now than my blessed America. So I understand that. But I agree with what you’re saying. I see what you’re saying in terms of how that might be interpreted as crossing the line, the patriotism, the decking out and all of that.

If the line is that razor thin, I guess the question is, do we do away with it altogether in the Church? I wouldn’t say so, but I guess the flag and arms is designed to unify you, and it’s also designed to identify you. Right. I can say I have multiple identities, but the most important of my identity is my identity in Christ. I can talk about my identity as a husband. I can talk about my identity as a father. I can talk about the identity of the two countries that I am citizen of. But at the same time, if my identity in Christ is not exalted above all those, then there’s a problem ultimately. And the most important identity I have is that my identity is found in Christ.

So, Jay, let’s wrap it up and tell me as we talk about it. We talk about the purpose of the national anthem as being something that bring unity to people and stuff like that. How can we take this conversation and point people to the gospel of Jesus Christ? When someone becomes a Christian? There are certain things. There are certain sins that just immediately fall off. And then there are others that you go through your life turning from. We call this the process of sanctification. It’s the same thing. I think with any nation or fledgling nation, our nation is no longer fledgling. But compared to many other countries, we’re still a very young country, only 200 years or so, 200 plus years. This idea of Grace, of forbearance, of working it out, not seeking to destroy it and just throw it out, but seeking to work it out to untangle all of these. Like Pastor Mike said, the effects of this birth defect that this country has been established with there’s value in that we know that’s valuable. We see it in Christian lens. God in His righteousness in His Holiness could have tossed mankind into hell and made no provision for redemption, no provision for a chance to even be made right with Him because we were in the wrong. We’re the ones that sinned against him. We’re the ones that violated all of the beauty that he created and everything the Bible says it was good when he created it, and we came along and did what we wanted to do and ruined everything. He would have been righteous in doing so, completely obliterating us and starting over if he wanted to. But he had mercy. He had patience. He had, forbearance he had mercy. He had Grace. And that’s an example that he set for all of us to follow that Grace, and that mercy is available to anyone who will turn from their sins and put their faith and trust in Him. That’s incredibly benevolent because he doesn’t have to do that. But he bound himself to that rule as it were to think of a better word. But he put the restriction on himself that he will count you as righteous. He will treat you as though you have never sinned if you have turned from your sin and put your faith in trust in the Lord Jesus Christ.

And he can do that because he’s the author of this entire creation that we’re living in right now. He has the authority, and he has the power and the right to do that. And that is incredibly. I mean, that’s great news for us, the possibility that we can be made right with the Holy God when we’re the ones that mess everything up, we’re the ones that keep thumbing our noses at him and beating our chest and vaunting ourselves at him. And he’s the one who is merciful and benevolent toward us. That is a great mercy. That is a great Grace that he extends to anyone who will turn from their sin and believe on Him. But if you continue in your sin, if you continue in your way in His Justice in His Holiness, he will exact that punishment that we so richly deserve, and that’s eternal separation from Him. One of the things that we can point to is the same thing that’s happening. These people who are there’s, no reconciliation, no repentance, no forgiveness. You did this wrong. So we got to tear all this down. And that’s completely antithetical to the example of Christ, to the example that God has given us through His word in His actions and everything that He’s done. And so if you’re listening and you think that you’ve been wronged by this so called systemically racist nation, which it isn’t, consider this possibility. Is it possible that whatever ill, whatever wrong or whatever tragedy befalls you, that’s the very least that you deserve, that’s the very least that any of us deserve when we have thumbed our noses out of Holy God and we’ve deliberately separated ourselves from him, and now we want to play victim and cry and complain when bad things happen. Well, we separated ourselves from the source of love. The source of good. God is love. The Bible says God is light. God is good. When we willfully separate ourselves from Him. All we can expect is a life of sin and brokenness and sadness and misery and darkness and hopelessness and despair. That’s a given. But we don’t have to walk in that darkness. We don’t have to continue in that realm of hopelessness and despair. We don’t have to continually thumb our nose of that God because he’s merciful and benevolent and willing to save and willing to pull you out of there. If you will let go of that sin, if you will acknowledge what Jesus Christ did on the cross to pay for your sin, he had to die to pay for that sin and for us to continue in our rebellion, we will get exactly what we’ve got coming, exactly what we deserve. And it will be none of God’s fault. It will be all of our fault because we refuse to receive Christ, refuse to receive his very merciful intervention and dying on the cross to pay for our sins to be made right with the Holy God. So while we’re thinking about whether or not we can reconcile as a nation, think about the bigger picture and think about our place in it and see the parallels turn from your sin and believe in the Savior today.

Thank you for listening to get a hold of us to support this podcast or to learn more about removing barriers, go to removing barriers. Net this has been the Removing Barriers podcast. We attempted to remove barriers so that we all can have a clay view of the cross.