Thoughts on Patriotism

The beginnings of patriotism for God’s people are found in 1 Samuel 8, in which they reject God as their king and demand a man: “We want a king over us. Then we will be like all the other nations, with a king to lead us and to go out before us and fight our battles.” So we can claim more of the resulting glory for ourselves.

War is the most satisfying way for a nation to demonstrate its superiority. It is the ultimate team sport. Robert E. Lee said: “It is well that war is so terrible, otherwise we should grow too fond of it.”

Lee might also have observed, “The natural inclination of men is to kill, destroy, and dominate in the pursuit of glory. If we can convince ourselves of God’s approval when we do it, so much the better!” Think of a military chaplain saying that to the troops.

Elias Canetti, in Crowds And Power, puts it this way: “A murder shared with many others, which is not only safe and permitted, but indeed recommended, is irresistible to the great majority of men.”

In the world, one's power is measured by how much misery one can cause.

Adam Smith, in The Wealth of Nations, said: “In great empires the people who live in the capital, and in the provinces remote from the scene of action, feel, many of them, scarce any inconveniency from the war; but enjoy, at their ease, the amusement of reading in the newspapers the exploits of their own fleets and armies. To them this amusement compensates the small difference between the taxes which they pay on account of the war, and those which they had been accustomed to pay in time of peace. They are commonly dissatisfied with the return of peace, which puts an end to their amusement, and to a thousand visionary hopes of conquest and national glory from a longer continuance of the war.”

When people say “Freedom isn’t Free,” what they’re actually saying is: “Freedom isn’t free - it requires killing and dying, human sacrifice, as if to the gods of old. It is not a gift from God. Gifts are free. Grace is a gift. Freedom, on the other hand, is earned. And because freedom is earned, we deserve it. We bought it (and continue to pay for it) with our blood, fair and square. We need thank no one but ourselves. Our perseverance and superiority over others have given us a reward worthy of a great people.”

Is freedom a gift from God or is it a right that we seize for ourselves, if we must kill people to obtain it and maintain it? After all, if there are such things as God-given rights, the reasoning goes, then surely God approves of our killing for them. The assertion that freedom was a gift implies that God said to us, “I have a gift that I’d love to give you but there are people standing in the way of your receiving it, about which I can do nothing. In order for you to receive my gift you must earn it by killing them.” Does that make sense? And did Jesus provide us an exemption from loving such enemies? Or did he reject the “gift” of freedom by not leading an uprising against the Roman occupiers as a patriot?

If those who are not willing to fight (kill) to be free don't deserve to be free, then Jesus didn't deserve to be free.

"So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed." (John 8:36) Jesus offers us freedom from sin (see verse 34). He didn't say, "So if you set yourself free by killing the appropriate people, you will be free indeed." His response to tyranny is found in Luke 18:7-8. Peter’s is found in 1 Peter 2:18-19.

Both Exodus and the return from Babylonian exile demonstrate God’s ability to liberate a people without them firing a shot. They called out to Him and waited patiently. As slaves, they were much less free than American colonists, who denied freedom to their own slaves as they killed to gain more freedom for themselves. And yet, if the southern colonies had been told that in the new republic they would have to give up their slaves, they would have chosen to remain British colonies.

In Matthew 22:15-22, Mark 12:13-17 and Luke 20:20-26, Jesus was asked whether a tax perceived to be unjust should be paid. He didn’t respond by authorizing his followers to kill whomever needed to be killed to avoid paying the tax.

Given the opportunity, would Paul have killed any guards to gain his freedom? His joy was not dependent upon freedom (except that which is provided by Christ).

Imagine Paul closing his letter to Philemon: “Oh, and by the way, if you don't free your slave Onesimus he has our permission to kill you.”

If your enemy takes away your freedoms, pray for wisdom to present a positive Christian witness to him that you both may glorify God. (1 Peter 2:12)

It is quite true that “freedom isn’t (truly) free.” Many think of freedom like an on/off switch. Either you have it or you don’t. But it’s actually a relative term expressing a continuum, with Anarchy (absolute freedom) at one end and Slavery (absolute control) at the other. The United States, like most countries, falls somewhere between the two. Our concept of freedom is a compromise that is constantly changing as new laws are added to the books. Indeed, the very purpose of government is to restrict freedoms to keep us from abusing one another. The Ten Commandments restrict our freedoms. Satan is the god that encourages us to be free to do whatever we want - to engage in the pursuit of happiness, rather than God (if the two were synonymous we could effortlessly resist temptation and there would be no sin). When we say we’re free we’re actually comparing ourselves with some other nation we believe to be closer to the Slavery end than ours. We are not truly free - that would be anarchy.

The dilemma for freedom-loving Christians is that freedom allows moral laxness in society.

So-called Judeo-Christian principles include only those principles from the Hebrew Bible that have been assimilated into Christianity. They do not include new principles established by Christ (Christian principles) in the New Testament. A worldview embracing the justice of the Old Testament combined with the “easy” salvation of the New (and nothing more) is attractive to many, as it ignores the higher standards set by Christ.

In contrast to patriotism, love does not boast, it is not proud. (1 Corinthians 13:4)

An individual can be Christian but can a country?

Are non-American Christians expected to be patriotic for their country of residence or for America, especially when the two are at war?

If America was founded by God to be a special Christian Nation, then Southerners must acknowledge that secession was rebellion against God.

Patriotism is the means by which the State secures its blessings from the Church.

The very nature of patriotism is competition – us vs. them. Christianity is all about cooperation (without compromising obedience to Christ).

The American way of life (our national glory) is a god for which we’ll kill. Veterans’ memorials, with their flag-topped Asherah poles, are its shrines. I’m committed to the Kingdom way of life (God’s glory), for which I’ll die.

“The kingdom of God – a king and a kingdom, but no state or land requiring violence to defend.”

There are Christians residing in the US who think of the world’s population in terms of ‘Americans’ and ‘non-Americans.’ If, as an American Christian, you would not have felt the same sorrow had the 9/11 attacks occurred in Mexico City, you should carefully consider your citizenship in the worldwide kingdom of God.

“If you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? Even ‘sinners’ love those who love them. And if you do good to those who are good to you, what credit is that to you? Even ‘sinners’ do that.” (Luke 6:32-33)

“Patriotism is often an arbitrary veneration of real estate above principles.”—George Jean Nathan

Assuming you're an American, by whom would you rather be killed?

(A) an American
(B) a non-American
(C) no preference

If you chose answer (A) you are more likely to support the invasion of foreign countries as a method of reducing your risks of premature death. A cost/benefit analysis of this method would likely produce a much higher cost than other risk-minimizing strategies for prolonging your life (such as installing lockable cockpit doors in airliners and other homeland security measures). We aren’t terribly upset by Americans killing Americans. But when Americans die in a terrorist attack we’re outraged that they were killed by non-Americans because our national pride is wounded.

When Christians replaced pagans as the Authorities did they gain exemption from the command to love their enemies and thus inherit the right to rule like pagans? (If you can ignore that command you can ignore all Christ's commands.)

What about Romans 13? When we visit a foreign country we abide by its laws. Paul would remind us that, as pilgrims in the world, all countries are foreign to us, including the one in which we reside. There's a difference between submitting to one's government and condoning its actions -- it’s the difference between avoiding rebellion and being an advocate of government policies. An obvious example of this dilemma is the German Church in the Nazi years, but all churches face the challenge to some degree. The State does not bind itself to the commands of Christ but the Christian is bound by them (e.g., Matt 5:38-39, Luke 6:27-28) and cannot use the excuse of government service to avoid them, thereby placing the State above Christ. Peter said: “We must obey God rather than men!” (Acts 5:29). Romans 13 was not an exhortation by Paul to join the State, and the early Christians didn't interpret it as such. On the contrary, he said: “our struggle is not against flesh and blood” and “For though we live in the world, we do not wage war as the world does. The weapons we fight with are not the weapons of the world.” He doesn't end Romans 12 with: "...unless you're a soldier." If there’s any validity to what Paul says in Romans 13, he has to be talking about unbelievers wielding the sword, which was the norm in his day.

Patriotism is War's initiator and cheerleader.

The efforts Christians put into making their transitory country greater should instead be invested in expanding the kingdom of God.

“Civil religion is neither bona fide religion nor ordinary patriotism, but a new alloy formed by blending religion with nationalism. If civil religions were bona fide religions then one would expect to find a soft side to them, teaching love of neighbor and upholding peace and compassion. But this is not the case.” —Stjepan Mestrovic

Another reason Christians should not be bound to their nation’s agenda: “While reviewing the cables, Tamm says, he first spotted reports that referred to the rendition of terror suspects to countries like Egypt and Morocco, where aggressive interrogation practices banned by American law were used. It appeared to Tamm that CIA officers knew “what was going to happen to [the suspects]”—that the government was indirectly participating in abusive interrogations that would be banned under U.S. law.” (Newsweek magazine)

John McCain proclaimed the United States to be “the greatest force for good in the world today.” No, John, that honor goes to the kingdom of God.

Another expression of America-worship, this one from Newt Gingrich: “America is still the last, best hope of mankind on earth.” I thought Jesus was the last, best hope of mankind.

Mitt Romney (10/22/12): "This nation is the hope of the earth…I'd like to be the next president of the United States to support and help this great nation and to make sure that we all together [no mention of the King or His Kingdom here either] remain America as the hope of the earth."

Ronald Reagan (10/27/64) on the urgency of electing Barry Goldwater: "We will preserve for our children this, the last best hope of man on Earth, or we will sentence them to take the last step into a thousand years of darkness." Since Goldwater lost, that thousand years presumably includes the Reagan presidency.

Abraham Lincoln (12/1/1862): "We shall nobly save or meanly lose the last best hope of earth."

(Does God have any say in the future of His creation? If you're a non-American reader these quotes should give you a sense of how Americans see themselves.)

Rick Santorum (9/15/12): "The basic premise of America and American values will always be sustained through two institutions -- the church and the family." I hope you're wrong, Rick. The church should be sustaining kingdom of God values.

America is not the kingdom of God.

The kingdom of God does not depend upon the survival of any kingdom of the world.

Former vice president Dick Cheney said on 2/4/09 that protecting the country’s security is “a tough, mean, dirty, nasty business. These are evil people. And we’re not going to win this fight by turning the other cheek.” Then I guess this isn’t a Christian nation.

As a citizen of the kingdom of God I am not emotionally invested in this kingdom of the world in which I live. My focus must be on God and my neighbor.

Would Jesus fly the flag of a kingdom of the world? Why should His Church?

If you’re having trouble letting go of your national flag it is an idol, for it does not represent God.

Nations are temporary. The kingdom of God is eternal.

If our armed forces were abolished most Christians would be terrified by the prospect of trusting in God alone. If He has a continuing purpose for America as we know it, the God of The Flood can prevent its demise at the hands of its enemies.

At the outset of the First World War on August 1, 1914 the Kaiser declared war on Russia and, appealing to cheering German crowds, bellowed: "Let your hearts beat for God and your fists on the enemy." In other words, love God, hate your enemy. Jesus’ response is found in Matthew 5:38-39 and 43-44. Christian soldiers killed in war are victims of a Church that failed to teach them that response and that when God and country conflict, their duty is to serve God (Acts 5:29). If the allies had not resisted the German march to Paris there wouldn't have been a First World War or Second World War.

Do eulogies for soldiers killed in war ever include Jesus’ admonition: “Put your sword in its place, for all who take the sword will perish by the sword.”? Your sword’s place is its scabbard, not the body of your enemy (nor your friend’s enemy, as in Peter’s case).

Jesus allowed himself to be killed, and asked forgiveness for his enemies – those who were killing him. When he said, “Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends” I don't think he meant “Greater love hath no man than this, that a man get killed killing his friends’ enemies.” (In the next verse he said, “You are my friends if you do what I command.” When you engage your friends' enemies, they become your enemies, whom he commanded you to love. Killing them is not among your options. One option consistent with Jesus' words would be to place your body between your friend and his/her enemy.) Islamic martyrs are killed killing others -- Christian martyrs are not.

Though there is a worldly justification for killing to obtain or maintain freedoms, there is no Christian justification for it. Which suggests that Christians who die while doing it, die in vain. Yet, we venerate those who have “fallen” (killed while killing), protecting our freedoms. We must acknowledge that such thinking reflects the reality that we place a higher value upon our lifestyle than upon our loved ones who are sacrificed to preserve it. Glorifying them may ease our consciences, but it also entices the next generation to volunteer for military service and kill more enemies we don’t want to love.

When we tell soldiers in uniform: “Thank you for protecting our freedoms,” we're essentially saying: “Thank you – I’d rather for you to suffer a horrendous death, your mother to lose a son, your wife to lose her husband and your children to lose their father, than for me to lose my pleasant lifestyle. As a matter of fact, there’s no limit to the number of soldiers I would allow to perish protecting my freedoms. But be assured, I will give all of you glory.”

(If there is a limit to the number of soldiers you would allow to perish protecting your freedoms, what is it? If you had to watch each man die, at what point would you be sickened enough to surrender your freedoms rather than see any others killed?)

Dead soldiers cannot see our gratitude because their happiness does not depend upon the attitudes, actions and circumstances of the living. Yet, for as long as we are grateful to them and remember them as heroes, rather than as victims of our lack of trust in God, we will continue to send the living to their deaths to allay our fears. In Isaiah 50, God asks, “Do I lack the strength to rescue you?” In Luke 18, Jesus says, “And shall God not avenge His own elect who cry out day and night to Him, though He bears long with them? I tell you that He will avenge them speedily.” Pray to God to safeguard the freedoms He wants you to have, and give Him your gratitude.

Do military chaplains ever tell their troops: “Have nothing to do with this war - it does not meet Just War criteria”? Their presence in the organization implies God’s approval of its actions in the same way as that of a staff chaplain in an abortion clinic. Christian soldiers tend not to question the killing their country orders them to do, as though the will of the government is that of the will of God. German Christian soldiers made that assumption regarding their government in 1939. Who was there to tell them otherwise? The Church failed, including the chaplains. They were blinded by patriotism. On the other hand, according to Romans 13, the German authorities were established by God, just as the pagan Roman authorities had been established by Him in Paul’s time. According to Augustine, Christians under those authorities are obligated to go to war at their direction and are right to do so. What gave Christians of other countries the right to oppose them? Would Jesus encourage the Christians on both sides to do their best to kill each other? If those on the “wrong side” sincerely believed they were on the “right side,” how can any soldier be certain he’s on the “right side?” (See last paragraph at bottom of page.)

The first sentence of the paragraph above is not an endorsement of Just War theory, which is ignored or given only lip service by political leaders who actually accept or reject wars on the basis of national interest (at best). It seems to validate the consensus on doctrinal opposition to Christian soldiering in the early church because had that not been the case, there would have been no need for Just War theory. The result looks more the work of deists, or even humanists, than Christians. In contrast to covenants, which listed both the responsibilities of God’s people and of God, the Just War concept ignores God’s role – especially in the criterion of probability of success (You only attempt to stop an injustice if you can do it without God’s help? If you can leave the consequences of not going to war in God’s hands, why go to war ever?). Nevertheless, Just War advocates lament the “need” to go to war (a "necessary evil") and suggest that it be carried out with a sense of pious sadness. But either God wants us to kill “those people” or He doesn’t. If He does, we should carry out His will joyfully and welcome all opportunities to do so. Jesus never advocated limited war. Rather than pretending to love our enemies by limiting ourselves with some extra-biblical concoction with pagan origins, we should either be Israelites and wage war in accordance with Deuteronomy 20 or we should be Christians and actually love our enemies.

Paradoxically, Just War advocates justify their position by observing that Christians served in a Roman army that was called upon to engage in actions that would later be deemed unjust, such as territorial expansion. Arguing that because there were early Christians in the Roman army it’s okay for Christians to serve in the military is like saying that because Christians sin it’s okay for Christians to sin.

The Battle Hymn of the Republic needs a word changed in the 5th verse to convey the actual meaning of the song: "As He died to make men holy, let us die [change to kill] to make men free"

Democracy had existed prior to Christ in the Greek city-states and elsewhere but nowhere is it endorsed in the Bible. Had the Israelites demanded self-rule rather than a king it is unlikely God would have been any more pleased with them, as it is no closer to the rule of God than monarchy. Its defense rests on the belief that God’s will is manifested through the desires of the masses. Like freedom, there is no Christian justification for killing people to obtain or maintain it.

War results from a lack of patience with God and a lack of trust. We are unwilling to give God the prerogative of allowing our enslavement, so we take matters into our own hands. Had it not been for the American Revolution, Americans might today be as oppressed as the Canadians, Australians, and New Zealanders. There probably wouldn’t have been an American Civil War, as slavery had been abolished in the British Empire earlier in the century. Even so, the Civil War was not a necessity--it was a Great Sin, chosen by both sides.

The Declaration of Independence is almost considered an infallible sacred text. But it states: “Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…” According to Romans 13, governments are instituted by God, deriving their just powers from God. And Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness must actually be alienable rights because government can take them away, based upon one's behavior. The continuance of slavery mocked the assertion of inalienable rights for decades, suggesting its inclusion was merely a rhetorical device for an impressive political manifesto designed to justify armed rebellion, including the killing of Christian brothers (see 1 Corinthians 3:16-17 and 1 John 3:15). Indeed, the very concept of inalienable rights seems designed to justify killing for what we insist is ours. But Jesus said, "...if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back." (Luke 6:30) Another Christian principle overlooked by the Founding Fathers in favor of Enlightenment principles. Killing people to obtain or maintain freedoms isn’t a God-given right, but a Locke-given right (John Locke, that is).

So what gave us the authority to violate Romans 13:1-2 and rebel against a government that acknowledged the sovereignty of Christ? The scripture makes no exceptions, even for pagan dictatorships like the Roman Empire. Nor does it suggest that, though an individual Christian cannot rebel, a group of them can. In the Old Testament, did God ever tell the people of Israel or Judah to rebel against their wicked king? “For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry.” (1 Samuel 15:23) The new One World Trade Center in New York, at a symbolic 1776 feet above ground zero, is our latest monument to defiance.

Having first appeared on the two-cent piece in 1864, “In God We Trust” has consistently appeared on all our coinage only since 1938. Ironically, many of us (including many Christians) don’t trust in God - if you have a fear of death, for example, you don’t trust in God. More truthful mottoes might include “In Our Political Party We Trust” or “In Our Military We Trust”. And if we were to express our highest ideal on a coin it would read: "Keeping Americans Safe from Non-Americans", the unstated part being: "at any cost to both groups". Instead of being the "Home of the Brave", this might be the "Home of the Fearful".

“Liberty,” however, has been on our coinage consistently since its beginning, often personified. We also have a colossus of Libertas, the Roman goddess of freedom, on a pedestal in New York Harbor. Such devotion to Liberty is idolatrous when it distracts us from obedience to Christ.

The Roman Republic/Empire thrived for centuries as a pagan nation but ceased to exist less than a century after officially becoming Christian. If God wanted a “Christian nation” in the sense that America is believed to be, why didn’t He enable the survival of the Christianized Roman Empire?

Is there a difference between patriotism and nationalism? Apparently not. The Founding Fathers are our ultimate examples of patriots. They were willing to kill, and did kill, to get what they wanted, just like nationalists. Jesus was neither.

It used to be that if you liked what they were doing, they were patriots; if you didn’t like what they were doing, they were nationalists. But nationalism is becoming more popular, so the two terms should finally be recognized as synonymous.

The fullest manifestation of patriotism was demonstrated by Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan - people willing to do anything for their country.

“The people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country.” - former Reichsmarshall Hermann Göering

Serving one’s country is not the same as serving God: Writing from France in 1941, at the height of the Nazi conquest of Western Europe, Johann Wieler wrote: “We did not believe we would bring the French to their knees in such a short time. All soldiers who are fighting here for their fatherland are performing worship in the truest sense of the word. Those who do not believe in our victory do not believe in God. The Lord is visibly on our side. Heil Hitler.” - from The Mennonite, March 2018

Serving Two Masters

Gott Mit Uns

Gott Mit Uns
God [is] With Us