Monday, November 20, 2006

What is true patriotism?

At God's Politics, Bob Francis wonders about the United States and true patriotism:
It saddens me that in embracing our military, we as a nation have also seemed to embrace an uncritical militarism. In supporting our troops, we have failed to require the utmost justification in order to wage war. In believing in the promise of the spread of democracy, we have excused the means in order to justify the ends. The flag, which we pledged as kids stood for “liberty and justice for all,” has become a symbol that “might makes right” and that there are two standards in the world, one for us and one that we require of everyone else.

Most of all, it saddens me that some in the American church have uncritically elevated our identities as Americans over our callings as Christians. There are moments when we are called – by our Christian identities – to question the values of our American identity. While God most certainly loves our troops, we must guard against the haughtiness that assumes God blesses what we do as a nation, especially when it comes to actions that directly or indirectly lead to the deaths of others. Instead of believing God has written us a blank check, we should fall on our knees in humility, praying for God’s guidance and direction.
In his observations about the church in the United States, Mr. Francis is right. At the same time, I hope Mr. Francis, Jim Wallis, and all the folks at God's Politics don't take the equally haughty position that their politics are necessarily God's.

4 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

I sometimes see also the equating of American patriotism with Christianity, which should not be. But one thing that throws me off in such discussions is that idea that in the O.T. God made nations rise and fall. It seems like the N.T. continues that idea. Also, governments are given authority by God to wield the sword ... does that extend outside their own countries? I do know we are to pray for government leaders so that we may live peaceful lives. It is all very confusing to me.

9:10 PM, November 20, 2006  
Blogger Milton Stanley said...

It's confusing to me, too. Sometimes it seems reasonable to wield the sword outside one's geographic area. The U.S.'s intervention in Somalia in 1992-93, for example, was a deeply moral action with what seems to have been a humanitarian purpose. Too bad the U.S. press and citizens don't seem to have been willing to lose even a few soldiers for the sake of an entire suffering nation.

God does make nations stand and fall. On the occasions God chooses to let us know why, the ones that fall always seem to do so for their arrogance. It's certainly arrogant to equate national interests (economic hegemony, etc.) with God's will.

8:31 PM, November 21, 2006  
Blogger Krakowian said...

I must confess that the oversimplification of US patriotism=Christianity bothers me quite a bit. There is a tone of condesension in such statements that I find difficult to accept quietly. I, for one, while patriotic, would never consider my patriotism to equal my new birth. Surely there are some people who feel this way, and some Christian leaders who may strive to equate the two, but I honestly believe that people who don't agree with them are oversimplifying a view point they simply don't understand.

I am, first and foremost, a disciple of Christ. However, He has seen fit to make me a citizen of one of the greatest nations on earth. This citizenship bears a great responsibility, as that nation can only be as great as we, the citizens, allow it to be, so it behoove me, as a citizen, to take an active part in our "experiment" of self-government, and that last word, self-government, is key. In Paul's day, such a concept not only did not exist, but it most certainly did not exist in practice. However, today, while we have executives who execute the will of the people (police, governers, president, etc.) they must rule within the confines of the will of the people.

If you want it put bluntly and brutally, he who yells the loudest has his will put into execution. It's that simple. Yes, it's sloppy, ugly, and doesn't always work the best, but as some wise person once said, "Democracy is the worst form of government--execpt for all they rest, they are even worse."

IMO, and from all my studying on the subject, democracy is the only form of government, together with a free market, are the only way that fulfills the two most common problems with humanity--his total depravity.

Taking both together, you have decentralized authority--which limits man's ability to be as bad as he could be, and actually channels man's natural desire to acquire (let's call it greed) to positive ends--let's call it the profit motive.

The checks and balances of the three-legged stool of American democracy, and the natural checks and balances of the free market both serve together to mellow out the extremes that would be possible were they not in place. As such, my patriotism is _not_ misguided, it is calculated to prevent abuse which is always a potential, even in the American form of government and economy. It all breaks when the two principles of de-centralized power and economic diversity of the free market are compromised. And _that_ is why I am a patriot.... That is my duty as a citizen. It ties in closely with anon's comment of praying for government leaders, etc...

Now, how does this extend beyond our borders?

It gets more complicated, but say you are the President. You've been attacked--an act of war--which, btw, an attack on the Pentagon _is_ an act of war--but there is no one, single nation that attacked us, but rather a religion--or rather religios fanatics... They are supported and helped by nations, but never directly. However, some of those nations most _certainly_ have designs for the US, and will _use_ these fanatics to work their will for them.... So, what does the president do? Well, there are multiple fronts on which he could and should fight...

1. The attackers themselves.
2. Those that aid and help the attackers.
3. Those who _could_, given the opportunity, help the attackers, and would.
4. Those who are like-minded, and who would take advantage of the attackers to forward their own agenda.

Yes, this is pretty broad, but we have one example from the last century of what could happen, were we to try to pacify or ignore these people. His name is Chamberlain. Remember him? "Peace in our time" he said, waving some silly paper with a signature from Adolf Hitler. Appeasement has been tried in the past with aggressors, and all it has served to do is to allow the aggressor to grow stronger.

So, Bush was in a horrible catch-22 situation. If he did nothing, or only played around the edges, we would probably be in the midst of a horrible war today, or have had nukes blown off inside the US borders, or even European borders, or maybe in Israel. It could be also, that chemical/biological weapons would have been used--or most certainly, if not already, then the time would be drawing close--or, barring that, these things used as bargaining chips in a lethal game of brinkmanship. That's one scenario--and I think we can agree that it was not merely hypothetical, but only a matter of time.... If we had not responded strongly to the attacks on Sept. 11, this would have come to pass... So, that is the one side of Bush's choices...

Second, attack up front, in a sort-of preemptory strike, but not really. Remember, they attacked first. First, you go after Al Quaida, and then the Taliban, but who next? Sorry, but Iraq was in the thick of it, but Bush's plans didn't stop there. While in Iraq, what if we could make it a haven of democracy and free market in that part of the world? It was a brilliant concept, but the reality has not been so good as we had hoped--but I suspect that the problem has more to do with our expectations than the actual execution!

It would make a wonderful study to go back to the late forties, and read newspaper articles regarding the rebuilding of Germany and Japan after WWII. Reading these articles (of which I've read more than a couple) you would think that they were writing about Iraq today! And this was several years after the "war" was over. Similar statements to what we read today about "winning the war, but losing the peace" are repeated for _years_ after WWII!!!!

So, I think it would be wise to remember that some things take time. I fear, however, that Americans who have become so use to "instant" everything, now cannot wait for peace if it's not instant. This, unfortunately, is where the greatest weakness of democracy comes into play.... If the majority of Americans are convinced that time is one currency we do not wish to spend in Iraq, then, sad to say it, but our society is doomed, and the Iranian leader who said that Western democracy is dying will be proven correct. But the truth is, we have no choice _but_ to succeed--failure is not an option--because if we fail, our failure is complete, and all we think we love about our society will be gone. Is that patriotism?

Sorry for the rushed post, and horrible logic. I really need to get studying for tonight...

-Jon

3:34 AM, November 29, 2006  
Blogger Milton Stanley said...

Jon, thanks for the detailed and thoughtful comment. What you say makes sense. I'm not arguing for Christian pacifism or against the wisdom of any particular military action: only for the fundamental concept that for Christians, our primary citizenship is not with any earthly nation.

6:07 AM, December 04, 2006  

Post a Comment

<< Home