Should We Fight for Under God?

If the U.S. Supreme Court decides later this month to strike the phrase “under God” from the Pledge of Allegiance, America could be in for a rhetorical facelift. Not only will millions of schoolchildren cease reciting the Pledge known by their parents and grandparents, but other American symbols would also appear to be on the way out. “In God We Trust” no longer.

Of course, the Supreme Court may choose to side with the overwhelming majority of Americans, who want the Supreme Court to preserve the Pledge with “under God.” When the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals struck the phrase in 2002, their decision sparked widespread public outrage. Politicians voiced their indignation, while religious leaders decried the ongoing secularization of America.

As usual, some historical perspective can help us think about this issue.

Judging by the public reaction, one would think George Washington or Abraham Lincoln penned the Pledge. Actually “under God” first appeared in the Pledge as a Cold War-era addition. But the history of this phrase extends back to the nation’s birth. And during the Civil War, these two words comforted a nation unsure whether their experiment with democracy would succeed. Nevertheless, is it possible that a seeming Supreme Court victory could actually be a defeat in disguise?

Columbus Day Composition

The Pledge of Allegiance made its debut in 1892 when Massachusetts educator and Baptist minister Francis Bellamy authored the oath for Columbus Day festivities. Celebrating the 400th anniversary of the explorer’s landing in America, schoolchildren around the nation recited the Pledge: “I pledge allegiance to my flag, and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.”

This first version of the Pledge reflects the lingering effects of the Civil War, from which the nation was still recovering. Bellamy’s oath stresses the inseparable Union and ideal of fair treatment of all citizens regardless of race. Near the end of the 19th century these concerns persisted as immigrants streamed into America from around the world. The Pledge underwent a small revision in 1924 to clarify that Americans pledged their allegiance to “the flag of the United States of America.”

The Pledge did not change again until 1954, when Congress approved the addition of “under God.” This was the era of America’s Cold War stand-off against the aggressively atheistic Soviet Union. Americans wholeheartedly supported the change in the same spirit that led them, two years later, to approve “In God We Trust” as the national motto.

Partly spurred by Cold War uncertainties, Americans flocked to church during the 1950s, fueling a boom for Protestant and Catholic churches alike. After more than two decades of uncommon upheaval at home and abroad, many sought God’s comfort. As he approved the Pledge alteration, President Eisenhower echoed these concerns. “In this way we are reaffirming the transcendence of religious faith in America’s heritage and future,” he said. “In this way we shall constantly strengthen those spiritual weapons which forever will be our country’s most powerful resource in peace and war.”

Appealing to God for Independence, Preservation

Congress reached into American history for “under God.” In the throes of the Revolution, George Washington had spurred his troops to victory by invoking God’s provision. As the Continental Congress prepared to ratify the Declaration of Independence in the summer of 1776, with British troops gathering on their doorstep, Washington made the stakes clear to his army. “The time is now near at hand which must probably determine whether Americans are to be freemen or slaves,” he told the troops. “The fate of unborn millions will now depend, under God, on the courage and conduct of the army.”

But the phrase gained universal notoriety during a later, equally precarious period of American history. Following the deadliest battle of the Civil War, Abraham Lincoln delivered our nation’s most memorable speech—the Gettysburg Address. “Under God” did not appear in Lincoln’s early drafts of the speech, but it surfaced in the spoken version:

“It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us—that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to the cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion; that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain; that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom; and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.”

Lincoln never clarified the precise meaning of “under God,” but presumably he meant to convey America’s dependence on God and submission to God’s expectations for justice. Especially late in his life, Lincoln did shy away from discerning God’s earthly purposes. In his second inaugural address, Lincoln pointed to the sin of slavery and said God gave “to both North and South this terrible war as the woe due to those by whom the offense came.”

Yet Lincoln had additional motivations for invoking the Almighty. Deeply saddened by the war’s devastation, he worked to ensure that America would never again think of separation. Lincoln believed that if he could foster a civil religion, Americans would consider their nation to be sacred and thus indissoluble.

Beyond the Pledge

Lincoln’s vision for civic religion should give Christians pause. Even if the Supreme Court retains “under God,” the justices will do so only if they determine the phrase bears no genuine religious meaning. In other words, either “under God” serves to perpetuate American civil religion, or the phrase will be removed.

Christians have no interest promoting civil religion. America-worship is but a shadow of citizenship in heaven. When government co-opts religion in this way, genuine religious belief is cheapened. But if civil religion demeans Christianity, does God have a place in democracy?

More important than defending a phrase, Christians can revive the true meaning of “under God.” They can elect public officials who acknowledge and submit to God’s standards of justice in their decision-making. And they can help renew America’s commitment to “liberty for all,” because only “under God” are all men created equal. In secular and religious ideologies that reward human effort, men are anything but equal. Human equality is only possible when God lays low human divisions and renders null our uneven attempts to earn our way to heaven on earth or above.

Related Elsewhere:

Christian History Corner, a weekly column from Christian History & Biography, appears every Friday on Christianity Today‘s website. Previous editions include:

I Was in Prison and You Abused Me | What would Jesus do at Abu Ghraib? (May 28, 2004)

Do Nigerian Miracle Ministries Discredit the Faith? | The spiritual dynamism of West African Christianity is now well known even in the West. Do credulity-stretching, highly publicized miracles discredit what God is doing in that region? (May 21, 2004)

Holy America, Phoebe! | It swept across church lines, transforming America’s urban landscape with its rescue missions and storefront churches. Yet today, the “holiness movement” and its charismatic woman leader are all but forgotten. (May 14, 2004)

Mel Gibson’s Next Act: “The Man of the Passion”? | Thousands want Mel to make his next movie about a famous medieval friar. (April 30, 2004)

Let Us Not Set Asunder | The threat of gay marriage challenges Christians to defend older, better definitions of marriage. But what are those definitions, and how did they develop? (April 16, 2004)

Why does Easter’s date wander? | And why the Eastern Orthodox Church is nearly two weeks behind schedule. (April 08, 2004)

‘St. Mugg’ and the Wrestling Prophets | A modern British journalist gives us timely words from yesterday’s sinner-saints. (March 26, 2004)

Patrick’s Italian Brother | Lost amid the celebration of Patrick is the important story of Benedict, the father of western monasticism (Mar. 19, 2004)

Rediscovering the Language Jesus Spoke | Millions of Americans have spent two hours listening to the characters in Mel Gibson’s The Passion of The Christ speaking in an exotic, unfamiliar tongue. Yet not all find Aramaic so alien (Mar. 12, 2004)

Is Christianity Oppressive to Women? | Sometimes our Christian heritage must be overcome, not celebrated. (March 05, 2004)

Just a Closer Walk … with the Historical Jesus | Mel Gibson’s movie raises again the question: How much can we know historically about Jesus’ life and times? (Feb. 27,2004)

Why some Jews fear The Passion | Mel Gibson’s The Passion of the Christ gives Christians the chance to disavow a shameful history of anti-Semitism. (Feb. 20, 2004)

One Nation Under Secularism | France’s peculiar aversion to public religiosity is rooted in a sordid history of sectarian violence. (Feb. 13,2004)

The Blood-and-Fire Mission of the Salvation Army | Where did this tuba-playing, kettle-wielding social force come from, and what’s it all about? (Feb. 06, 2004)

Would You Like to Super-Size Your Ministry? | Joan Kroc’s $1.5 billion bequest to the Salvation Army promises to boost its admirable outreach, but history suggests new challenges and temptations lie ahead. (Jan. 30, 2004)

When God—or Allah—Is In the Details | What do Islamic “sharia” law and the colonial Massachusetts’ Puritan experiment have in common? (Jan. 23, 2004)

“The Bible Alone”? Not for John Calvin! | When we seek answers to churchly and societal issues in the Bible alone, citing the Reformation principle of sola scriptura, we are actually contradicting the Reformers. (Jan. 16, 2004)

Top Ten Stories of 2003 … with a Christian History Twist | Here is our review of “the Christian history that made the stories that made the news.” (Jan. 09, 2004)