Monday, November 14, 2011

Is there room for Patriotism in the Mission of God?

I turned on the tv late Saturday evening (11/12/11) to watch a bit of the Stanford vs. Oregon college football game. Before getting the channel on to ABC, I happened to notice the republican presidential debate on CBS and ended up spending the next 45minutes listening to the candidates spew their republican rhetoric (debates are maddening to me because they are all rhetoric, not real content. Questions are rarely  answered with anything but token party lines. But I digress . . . ). The topic of the night seemed to be national security as the moderators were focusing their questions on Iran, Pakistan, foreign aid, China's cyber attacks on the USA, and the use of torture.

As soon as the debate ended (it was cut short so CBS could air NCIS on time...sigh), two thoughts crossed my mind: (1) the only republican candidates for whom I would even consider voting are Jon Huntsman and Ron Paul and (2) for as much as Republicans try to appeal to Christians, most of what I heard touted during the debate was completely antithetical to the teachings I find in the Bible (or, more honestly, my understandings of those teachings).

For example:
  • many candidates bemoaned all Foreign Aid the united states offers because we need to solely be focused on our own interests.
  • Romney and Gingrich both supported Obama's executive order to have Anwar al-Awlaki (an american citizen) killed without trial or any other process of due dilligence. [At least Romney was booed for this, but probably because he was supporting Obama]
  • Rick Perry said we need to make the next century the American Century. He went on to say we need to ensure China ends up on the "ash heaps of history" just like Regan predicted Russia would end up on the ash heap of history. Apparently the sufferings of other countries are perfectly acceptable if it leads to the benefit of America.
  • Not a single candidate really talked about globalization, the need for cooperation, responsibility for fellow human beings, or care and concern for anyone outside of America.
  • Bachman complained that we don't have any jails overseas where we can hold and interogate terrorists without ever giving them a fair trial.
  • Only Hunstman and Paul spoke against waterboarding and truly opposed torturing human beings as a means of protecting the united states. All other candidates tried to denounce torture while not actually denouncing methods of torture.

Now, I know these are all complex issues and I am not trying to make light of them or to necessarily say I have thought them all thought-out and have clear-cut stances. But what came through loud and clear in the debates was this: "We need to protect and promote American prosperity no matter what the cost is to the rest of the world." If that doesn't cause some discomfort to the Christian, I suggest he or she might actually want to read the Gospels.

So, in light of the rhetoric promoting America's greatness I thought I would simply remind us that Christians in America are not citizens of America who are to look after the needs of America at all costs. Rather, we are citizens of the kingdom of heaven, the realm where God rules and the realm where we work for his purposes at all costs. The following verses remind us of this:
Philippians 3:20 - 21: 20 But our citizenship is in heaven. And we eagerly await a Savior from there, the Lord Jesus Christ, 21 who, by the power that enables him to bring everything under his control, will transform our lowly bodies so that they will be like his glorious body.
Hebrews 13:14: For here we do not have an enduring city, but we are looking for the city that is to come.
As we look forward to the kingdom of God, to the time when God's rule and his presence will completely recreate everything as we know it into full perfection, we shape our lives based on the ideals of that kingdom. So even though that kingdom is still out there in the future ahead of us, it is present in the way we live as the church of Jesus Christ. Our present lives are to be shaped by the kingdom. This means that we are more concerned with the rights of the poor, marginalized, and broken than those of the rich and powerful; more concerned with universal justice than the rights of one country; more concerned with human dignity, safety, and opportunity than personal or national security.

The dramatic narrative of the Bible reveals to us a God who is on a mission to renew his creation so that peoples of every tongue and tribe can live eternally in his presence and under his glorious rule. If all peoples belong to the new creation and if the Christian is called to live in the present as a citizen of this new kingdom even though it remains to be fully realized in the future, I ask this simple question without offering a clear cut answer: Is there room for nationalistic patriotism in the mission of God?

2 comments:

  1. To begin, I'd like to point out that a desire for an evil, despotic government to fail (China, in your example) in no way shows a lack of compassion for the people of those nations. The Chinese government actively oppresses Christians and forces women to have abortions, among many atrocities. the people of that nation would be far better off with that government on the "ash heap of history".
    Second, I strongly believe that a desire to reduce or temporarily government foreign aid is in no way a heartless or uncaring position. Our government - any government actualy - tends to be terrible in how it handles aid, whether within our borders and without. Waste, mismanagement, corruption, money being handed to corrupt Third-world governments and never reaching the people that desperately need it is the rule, not the exception. Jesus call for love and justice is for the corporate body of christ and the individual member of that body, not the government. Obviously we want our government reflecting our priorities, but why does that require the government's heavy involvement in welfare, foreign aid, and the like? I believe the federal government should provide for the safety of it's people, but leave care and generosity to people who desire to do it and understand what it is they want. Take that money out of the governments hands and put it back in the hands of the people, and you'll see far more generosity and more effective care for the poor than when the government attempts to do it. That's my humble opinion.
    To address the question of patriotism: we are a part of this nation, and our involvement in the process of government is required and commanded by Jesus. As with any part of a fallen world, it's important to try to engage the best elements of that government. In the process, appreciating what great blessings and opportunities are available to us as a part of a nation with great freedoms is healthy and appropriate. This is a natural result of engaging our culture, redeeming it and using it for His mission.
    Oh, I find it interesting that one of the only candidates you'd vote for would be Paul, considering he is one of the most strongly isolationist candidates in a long time.
    If I had more time and energy this might be a more thoughtful and effective response, but as it is, it's a mind-dump response. Not well organized or meant to directly address all your points. :)

    ReplyDelete
  2. Joe,
    I love the response. Your comment on China is certainly interesting. As I listened to the debate, I admit it did not sound like they were focusing solely upon the government, but it is definitely a possibility. If the comments were directed at just the despotic form of government, than that would be a different matter that would require more thinking.

    Also, to your comments on foreign aid, I actually agree with what you said. I've been convinced that helping often hurts (see the book of that title) and am all for reform, careful thinking, etc. Andrea and I are currently rethinking the support we give to organizations and I would want nothing less from any organization I support, including our government. My main reason for including this point in the article was that it was yet another example of the theme of promoting America at the cost of the rest of the world.

    Finally, I appreciate your comment about Paul. Let me clarify, I have no plans at the present moment of voting for him. He and Huntsman were just the only ones in the debate that seemed respectable to me, solely based on that debate. I do not consider myself to be well informed on the candidates yet, even Obama on the other side. (Which maybe means I shouldn't be writing until I do!).

    Ironically, I think I might still take Paul's isolationist approach over the exploitative approach I heard in others. Either take an attitude of if we are going to prosper, we (the world) will all prosper together OR the best way for us to all prosper is to do our own thing most of the time, unless extreme circumstances necessitate something different. Now, I should say that I would still prefer the former option and think the latter is perhaps a bit naive and impossible in our day.

    Finally, I appreciate your comments about patriotism, but I'm not sure it has really helped me figure out what role (if any) the mission of God allows for patriotism. I certainly like our country, being an American, being involved in civic affairs (though minimally), I'm just wondering at this point in my life what my attitude toward these things is to be and how that attitude will interact with my attitude toward God and his kingdom.

    Anyways, really interesting comments! Thanks for leaving them. I hope you are well and I hope we get to see you and your family soon. It has been too long!

    ReplyDelete