Discussion Jumpstarter
Study leader reference - not a definitive answer
Question 5
Pennsylvania required immigrants to pledge allegiance to King George II (1727), then later demanded renouncing George III in a new oath; how would early Christians—who were wary of oaths and confessed “Jesus is Lord”—have evaluated competing allegiance demands, and what does the speaker suggest is spiritually at stake when a Christian changes political oaths?
Another way to ask: How might early Christians—who avoided oaths and said “Jesus is Lord”—respond to being told to swear loyalty to different kings? What does the speaker say a Christian risks spiritually by switching political oaths?
Discussion Jumpstarter
Direct Answer
The speaker suggests Christians committed to Jesus’ words about oaths would see competing political oaths as spiritually dangerous because they threaten truthfulness and integrity; changing oaths would feel like violating a prior “solemn affirmation” and bending conscience under pressure.
- The 1727-era pledge required immigrants to promise allegiance to “King George II…kings of Great Britain” and “conform to the laws of England.”
- The later oath (1777/1778) required renouncing “George III, King of Great Britain” and swearing allegiance to Pennsylvania as “free and independent.”
- The speaker says one refusal reason was that they had already given their “solemn affirmation when they came here.”
- He quotes Jesus’ teaching against oaths: “Let your yes be yes and your no no…whatever is more…is from the evil ones.”
- He notes the oath also required informing on others: “discover and make known…all treasonous…conspiracies.”