My tweet from 15 minutes ago:

I have no problem, as a citizen of the US, in honoring those who fought. But not as a church "observance". Beware mixing allegiances

That tweet should have begun with the warning “Beware mixing allegiances”,  since the first part sounds a lot like the language with which I actually do have a problem. 

Key words/phrases:  “citizen of the US”

This almost sounds like there is a compartmentalization at work.  And I hate discussions that use this,  for it indicates what for me is a profound misunderstanding or ignorance of the role of faith and/vs/juxtaposed on citizenship,  like we can separate the two such that we can do things “as citizens” on the one hand and “as Christians” on the other.  This  is a dualism on which  so much of nationalism depends for its legitimacy as an argument.  When George W. Bush said “sometimes you just got to put religion aside when you have a job to do”,  he illustrates that position very well (not to mention revealing how he is no way an evangelical,  since no evangelical would actually say they are “setting religion aside”,  even though that is in essence what they are doing in their dualistic, nationalism-construct justification. 

The key concept for me is allegiance.  And so the very term “citizen” is  problematic,  since in America,  to talk of “citizenry” is to accept the assumption that this dualism is theologically possible.  To those who automatically appeal to Romans 13:1 (“be subject to the ruling authorities”) to justify their stance in spite of the fact that they couldn’t say they actually felt that this meets the  “what would Jesus do?” test.

“honoring”

it’s true that I have no problem “honoring” those who “served” in the military,  who either died or didn’t.  For one,  the “sanctity” of this “service” that has been instilled in our culture re: the necessity of military service,  and the trust that many place in the honorability of “the cause” for which they fight,  is powerful.  For the ones who place their trust in the honorability of the ones who charge  them with upholding the principles put forth,  they are indeed, “honorable” in fighting (also given that the “call to serve in the military” also is granted in Western liberal democracies,  a special exemption to wield the sword and kill.  The churches here have been all too willing to keep “hands off” or even  to underwrite those exemptions).

So I say “honor” with a host of theological caveats.

“church observance”

National holidays are not to be celebrated within the walls of the church.  I feel pretty safe in saying  that.  But we just can’t seem to help ourselves.  In order to be “relevant”,  we are “drawn” to the insistence that these things are “sacred duty” and “ultimate sacrifice”.  Excuse me,  but  wasn’t Jesus’ death,  for Christians,  the only “ultimate” sacrifice?  (Since “ultimate” basically implies “the top and only and supreme”).  The flying of American flags at churches and presence on the  altars seems to shout that this people here are of the mind to reshape, or “limit”  our call as Christians to make sure  it does  not conflict with or “transgress” the “American ideals”.  “ ’Cause ya’  know,  sometimes you just got to put  religion aside  when you got a job to do”