Banners into Bumper Stickers

We have turned banners into bumper stickers, rallying cries into memes. The thing which has not changed is the rhetorical flourish, the pointed message for friend and foe alike. Yet, it is probably a good idea not to overthink such mottos. They are motivational, not philosophical. Rhythm and rhyme are more important than reason, alliteration and assonance than accuracy.

For example, “No Taxation Without Representation” is a great line, appealing at once to high ideals of democracy and to base urges of avarice. And it has a ring to it. However, all it really says is that the reward for winning the Revolution is getting to choose who will take your money. (See the Whiskey Rebellion for details.)

“Nec Tamen Consumebatur” has become the motto of Scottish born Presbyterianism. “But it was not consumed” refers, of course, to the Burning Bush. The logo and legend were the inventions of George Mossman, the General Assembly’s printer, who stamped them on the title page of the 1691 Acts of Assembly. He did so without instruction or permission, yet what is more officially Presbyterian than that symbol?

So, what does it mean? It means that the Church of Scotland is still here. She has not been consumed by the fires of persecution under Cromwell, Charles II, and James VII&II. But what of the exegesis? Is the bush the people of God and the flame persecution? Or is the fire a theophany, the presence of I Am, a foretaste of the Shekinah? If so, should it be pictured? Does the bush have a significance other than to pique Moses’ curiosity? We know what Mossman meant, but is that what the passage means?

Another motto is “For Christ’s Crown and Covenant”. This appeared on a banner flown during the First Bishop’s War (1639). Summing up the casus belli, it is an anti-Erastian statement. The issue at stake is who rules the Church. Jesus is the King and Head of His church. He, not Charles I, has the authority to impose His will upon the Church in matters of doctrine, worship, and government. So, those who rally to this banner are fighting for Christ’s crown. Later, the Seceders and the Disruption Fathers would claim the same principle.

Christ’s covenant is more difficult to explain. The National Covenant is made with God, the king, and among the signatories. As a covenant made by the signatories with the king and among themselves, it is a social contract made before God. As a covenant with God, it is the signatories’ responsive covenant to the covenant of grace. The only covenant here which might be described as Christ’s is the covenant of grace. However, the person who coined the phrase probably had the National Covenant in mind. Christ’s covenant sounds good; but what is involved in theologising the rhetoric? As I said, it is probably not a good idea to overthink such mottos.