Higher Loyalty:  American Patriotism, Christian Ethics, and International Affairs

By Keith Swartzendruber

 

April 2002

 

            Patriotism and love of country combined with faith in God has always been an important aspect of American society.  The crisis of September 11^th made this even more obvious with flags adorning everything and “God Bless America” being sung and prayers for the victims being said at every public gathering.  This combination of religion and patriotism is nothing new.  Many combine their Christian faith with a love of country, creating in a way a kind of civil religion.  Patriotic hymns are regularly sung in churches, triumphantly declaring the blessings of liberty and democracy that America embodies.  For many, their Christian faith and love of country go hand in hand quite comfortably.

            But does patriotism truly fit with Christianity?  Many are uncomfortable putting the flag and the cross next to each other.  While they may appreciate the ideal of individual liberty that the United States was founded upon, they are critical of the political and moral baggage that goes with being identified as American.  Therefore, Christianity and patriotism are seen as two separate spheres.  Indeed a global faith like Christianity would seem to preclude much national loyalty and actually call for its adherents to be wary of any other loyalties besides one’s commitment to Christ.  How patriotic can a Christian then be?

 

 

World War I and the Evils of Nationalism

            Much thought on patriotism was spurred at the beginning of the twentieth century during the devastation of World War I.  Arguments were made both in defense and criticism of patriotism and national loyalty as an ideal.  Shailer Mathews, dean of the Divinity School at the University of Chicago, wrote in 1915 of patriotism as a counterpart to religion.[1]  Mathews describes them both as being expressions of spirituality.  While admitting that wrong has been done in the name of patriotism, he does not see it as inherently evil.[2]  Rather he argues universal human welfare will result from cooperative nationalism.[3]  This is demonstrated in his comparison between the patriotism of democracy as demonstrated by the Allied powers and the patriotism of autocracy as practiced by Germany.  Especially in this larger sense, patriotism is seen as a value encouraging the freedom of individuals.  Christianity, in turn, is at the service of patriotism by giving moral direction to the spiritual life of a nation.[4]

            This view of religion and patriotism is consistent with an emphasis upon individual freedom within a moral society.  This went directly against the socialism of Germany during World War I, where, argues Mathews, patriotism had become a national religion.[5]  Rather than the state being influenced by religion, the state creates religion to justify itself.  The state is put above the individual as being the locus of morality.

In truth, much of Mathews' argument is anti-German and calls into question whether his democratic patriotism supported by his Christian faith has been influenced to some extent by anti-German sentiment that existed not only in Europe but within the United States as well in the years just before and during World War I.  Some of the arguments he makes against German socialism could also be made against Christianity in the U.S., in that as much as Germany has developed a civil religion, so too has Christianity served as a civil religion since the founding of the U.S.  In fact in justifying fighting in World War I against a Germany bent on conquest, Mathews describes a struggle between good - the forces of democracy and freedom - and evil - German hegemonic desires - that he says Christian’s should support.  This is religion serving the state in providing justification for the war effort.

His criticism of pacifism, while perhaps justified to some extent, is inconsistent and jingoistic.  In expressing his support for conscientious objection, he states, “The conscientious objector – provided that he does not speak with a German accent – should not be persecuted.”[6]  This obviously anti-German comment calls into question the depth and validity of Mathews' Christian faith.  Additionally, he describes his admiration for Quakers and Mennonites, saying that Quakerism “is nearer the spirit of Jesus than is ecclesiastical orthodoxy.”[7]  Immediately following, however, he argues that Christianity must deal with actual social attitudes and circumstances and not ideals and theories.  He relativizes Christian faith and removes the teachings of the very figure at the center of the religion.  By relegating Jesus teachings to the realm of the ideal and otherworldly, Mathews removes the center Christianity, leaving only a shell religion devoid of meaning and uniqueness beyond that of other monotheistic religions such as Judaism and Islam.

Another noted academic, John Grier Hibben, took a somewhat different view of Christianity and Patriotism.  Hibben was an ordained Presbyterian minister and taught at Princeton.  He became President of Princeton in 1912 and served until 1932.  He succeeded his more famous predecessor, Woodrow Wilson.  Given this fact, his philosophy is not surprising.  Hibben published The Higher Patriotism in 1915, in which he laid out in a series of four lectures his views on patriotism.  He believed because of the diverse nature of the United States that patriotism could not be narrowly defined by race or other limiting factors.  He saw love of country as a concept that was ever evolving over time, taking on different meanings at different points.  He then extended the love of a diverse country like the U.S. to necessarily lead to a cosmopolitan understanding of loyalty.  Not only were we to love our country, but all of humanity as well.[8]

The defining characteristic for the way in which a nation should conduct itself for Hibben[9] is exemplified in the verse from Micah 6:8, “what does the Lord require of you, but to do justice and to love kindness. . . .”[10]  This calls on a respect for human rights and international justice that echoes the principles of Wilson and cosmopolitanism.  The nation is a tool to bring about justice and human rights for all of humanity.  Loyalty to nation, therefore, is seen as important as it contributes to the betterment of humanity as a whole.  The nation is second to the laws and ways of God.[11]

Despite this inclusive tone, Hibben does not preclude the use of force in defense.  If the U.S. were drawn into a war, he does believe that we should fight to the end to defend our national honor.[12]  But this seems much different than calls to defend democracy, which could naturally take us overseas and away from just defending our territory.  Hibben like Mathews cites the reality of things in the world and the need to respond to the circumstances we find ourselves in.  But Hibben also cautions against militarism, which drives desires for power and uses religion to create an altar of national glory.[13]  Hibben’s philosophy can be described then as a Christian cosmopolitanism, demanding loyalty not only to one’s nation, but also to all people in all nations.

 

Bonhoeffer, Nazism, and the “Good War”

            The next major war offered another opportunity for Christianity to struggle with notions of nationalism, warfare, and evil.  The rise of Nazism in 1930s Germany offered yet another challenge to unfettered nationalism and once again demonstrated the apparent evils of patriotism.  But as in World War I, the struggle was set up as one between good and evil, democracy and totalitarianism, and even Christianity and Atheism.  Citizens rallied to the cry for volunteers to beat back the tide of evil sweeping over Europe, be it Nazism from the view of the Allies, or the Jewish race from the Nazi view.  But in both Germany and the U.S., many were questioning the coming war, the persecution of minorities, and whether both were justified.

 

Bonhoeffer:  True Patriotism

One of the most cited theologians of the time was Deitrich Bonhoeffer.  He lived in Germany during the rise of Nazi nationalism in the 1930s and was eventually executed for taking part in a plot to assassinate Hitler.  Keith Clements describes Bonhoeffer’s view of the nation-state as a community that sustains and enhances life, but is a temporary structure existing only until the more absolute coming salvation of Christ.  The state exists only for the sake of Christ.  It does not have any inherent right to existence.[14]

            Despite this apparent anti-state slant, Bonhoeffer spoke of a deep love for Germany.  It was this love that ultimately lead to his execution for treason in April 1945.  During the 1930s, Bonhoeffer directed the Confessing Church seminary at Finkenwald.  Because of its egalitarian view of humanity, it ran against the Nazi anti-Semitism and as such was subject to repeated persecution by the Gestapo.  The seminary was closed in 1937 and Bonhoeffer was sent to the U.S. to escape.  But once there, Bonhoeffer realized that his place was back in Germany.  His connection to family and friends called to him and convinced him that his place was not in exile, but in Germany suffering alongside his fellow Christians.  Solidarity with humanity had to begin first of all within one’s own community and nation.[15]

            Bonhoeffer was ultimately committed to Christ and his faith, but also maintained solidarity with his community and nation in spite of and against the political structure that represented the German nation-state.  In bringing Bonhoeffer into a more modern timeframe, Clements argues that modern patriotism should not idolize the nation but remain thankful for it.  Citizenship in this nation means accepting the reality of where one lives and the sustenance one receives from the community.  To this community one owes responsibility and work in return for all that is gained from it.  But the perspective remains that of the creative and redemptive power of God.  This means that tough questions must be asked in light of the pursuit and continued revelation of the kingdom of God.[16]  This view of modern patriotism, informed by the work of Bonhoeffer, provides a balance between commitment to neighbor and to principle.  One is not pursued to the sacrifice of the other.  One must remain engaged with both community and God even when that engagement includes suffering and struggle.

 

The U.S. Church and World War II

            In the years following the end of World War I, the U.S. church reacted strongly to the atrocities that occurred in Europe.  The new modern tools of warfare clashed with a still lingering 19^th century mindset of cleaner warfare between two armies on a battlefield rather than aerial bombardments of cities.  As a result of these grim realities, the church turned strongly more pacifist, rejecting war outright as an abomination.  The churches supported the creation of the League of Nations and applauded when the Kellogg-Briand Pact of Paris effectively outlawed war except in defensive situations.  Many believed there would never again be a war except for those self defense situations that the church in general understood and supported.  But then came totalitarianism.

            After the likes of Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Franco, and Hirohito came to power in the 1930s, the church was forced to rethink its position.  When war broke out again in Europe in 1939, a war of sorts also broke out in the U.S.  Debate raged on what the church’s response should be to an evil believed by some to be worse than war.[17]  These debates occurred not only between but within churches as well.  Eventually most denominations expressed their support for war, although it was hardly enthusiastic, even after Pearl Harbor.[18]  There were some exceptions and some denominations followed an excruciating path to support for war.

            Many denominations called for American neutrality.  Not rejecting war or even the need to defeat the Axis, but also believing that the U.S. should not get involved.  This ambiguity reveals the stark dichotomy that each and every soul in each church struggled with as they tried to decide which path to take.  On the one hand, war was needed to resist an obviously evil force and to protect friends against aggression.  On the other were the teachings of Christ calling them to love their enemies and to not resist evil with evil.  Denominations including the Disciples of Christ, the eight million-member Methodist Church, the Christian Reformed Church, and the Catholic Church all eventually at least tepidly supported the war.[19]  All struggled with remaining true to their faith on one hand (despite its dichotomous nature) and proving their patriotism on the other (especially Roman Catholics who followed the Pope as its authority).  The only churches that remained unambiguously opposed to war were the historic peace churches (Quakers, Mennonites, and Brethren).

            But even the historic peace churches attempted to demonstrate their patriotism.  They worked together to create Civilian Public Service, a form of alternative service for conscientious objectors to World War II.  This was done to create ways for pacifists to perform service of national importance without having to go to war and violate their beliefs by killing.  They did not want to seem ungrateful for freedoms that they enjoyed in the U.S.  Many had ancestors who had fled persecution in Europe and came to the U.S. and Canada just because they would be free to worship as they pleased.  But at the same time, their beliefs did not allow them to fight for the country that had given them this freedom.

 

Modern Views of Patriotism

            Since World War II, the U.S. has gone through many different cycles of waxing and waning levels of patriotism within the country.  From the lows of Vietnam in the late 1960s and early 1970s, love of country and public support for government has never been higher as it has in the aftermath of September 11^th.  Peace groups had to be careful to walk a very fine line when criticizing government so they could not be seen as demeaning the lives lost in the attacks.  But even this support has waned, and a vocal anti-war movement has sprung up again seeking to address the injustices they view lead to the attacks.  In this complex setting, what does patriotism mean and how should Christians balance between loyalty to people and loyalty to Christ?

 

Lutheranism and the State

            Perhaps the best way to proceed is examine a few particular traditions that cover a bit of the spectrum of Christian belief in the U.S.  Beginning with the protestant church, one must first examine Lutheranism, which is at the root of the development of the protestant church during the Reformation.  Much of the reformation was motivated by political considerations as well as theological considerations.  Primary among them was the issue of the separation of Church and State.  At the time the German state was struggling against Rome for authority within its boundaries.  Sometimes Luther is viewed as a German apologetic, seeking separation from Rome for more national than theological reasons.  But Luther definitely established a theological break with the Catholic Church.  With respect to the State, this was the two-kingdom model.  Luther argued that humans are divided into two groups.  The first has faith and follows the will of God.  These people are governed by the law of God and are not in need of any other authority.  The second group, into which most people fall, are those who do not have faith in God.  For them, God created earthly governments to help order life within societies.[20]  This government has purview over the use of force to keep unbelievers in line.

            This view of the State suggests that it is ordained by God to exercise authority in this world.  It is held equally with the church as a tool of God on earth.  The Christian is able to hold office and exercise the powers of the state, including violence.  This is done even as the Christian maintains a personal ethic of peace and non-resistance with those around him.  The state is exempt from these principles since it is to maintain order in a fallen world.[21]  This doesn’t preclude the church from criticizing the state on issues of justice.  But it does mean a Lutheran can fully support their country when they go to war to maintain order in the world. 

 

 

Anabaptism and Two Kingdom Theology

            Another tradition that used two-kingdom theology was Anabaptism.  The two traditions, however, are far apart on issues of church and state.  The very theology of Luther and others at the time of the reformation in fact justified the killing of many Anabaptists during the 16^th century.  At the heart of the church-state debate for them was the issue of baptism.  Since the church and state were so intertwined, baptism into the church was also an act of loyalty to the state.  Anabaptists sought to separate church and state by practicing adult baptism and making it solely a religious act and not a political one.

            By rejecting loyalty to the state, Anabaptists placed their sole and supreme loyalty to God.  This differed from other protestant reformers, in that the reformers of other traditions, such as Lutheranism, did not cite theology to separate church from state, but merely wanted the two kept apart from each other.  As noted above, Lutheranism especially recognized the special and indeed divine role of the state in society.  Anabaptists saw the state as an inherently evil institution in an evil world.  Despite this they did agree with Luther that the state played a role in the world ordained by God.  It was seen however as outside of the perfection of Christ and governed by the way of the world.  Christians were to live according to the life of Christ.

            This view has changed little over time.  Today government is still viewed with suspicion and even at times contempt.  But at the same time Anabaptists realize the positive role of government as well.  Their resistance during times of war, however, has meant that their loyalty to government has been called into question.  Indeed the continued emphasis on the separation of the church from government still rings as unpatriotic.  Ultimately, Anabaptism has maintained the supremacy of God over the state.

 

Roman Catholicism and the State

            Roman Catholicism has been sympathetic to the state for much of its history.  From its days of empire to its establishment in the New World, Divine Providence and temporal power had never been far apart.  The U.S. church has sought to demonstrate its allegiance and bragged that not a single Catholic throughout the colonies supported Britain during the War for Independence.[22]  In trying to gain a foothold in the newly independent U.S., emphasis was placed on adapting to American social institutions and religious principles played only a secondary role.[23]  The Catholic Church during the early days of the U.S. actually was not concerned with theology so much as they were in establishing a foothold for Catholicism, and to do that they encouraged the marriage of patriotism and religion into a kind of civil religion.

            More recently, the Catholic Church has stepped away from this connection in a few areas.  As Catholics began to dialogue ecumenically with Protestants, interest grew in the views of other denominations that held a more critical view of the state.  What at one time may have been a fringe group of conscientious objectors has grown into Catholic social justice movements such as Pax Christi.  These groups are often at odds with government policy and are critical of wars that the U.S. gets into.  This is far different from the blank check written by the Catholic Church in the 18^th and 19^th centuries.  But the mainline Catholic Church in the U.S. has continued to remain more or less supportive of U.S. patriotism.

 

Cosmopolitanism and Christianity

            Christianity most closely resembles in some respects cosmopolitanism.  It is helpful therefore to examine the cosmopolitan view of patriotism in developing a full answer to our initial question.  Martha Nussbaum describes cosmopolitanism as calling us to exceed and cast aside national identities as insignificant, especially morally.  What Nussbaum calls for is that we be citizens of the world and not define ourselves as first a particular nationality and then a world citizen.  Rather we should first consider ourselves world citizens so that we embrace the common value of all humanity.  This is embracing the moral good over national loyalty.[24]  By rejecting patriotism Nussbaum argues for cosmopolitanism in ordering our relations with others around the world.

            While Nussbaum’s concerns for ethnocentrism and jingoism that often may follow patriotism are well founded, her outright rejection of patriotism needs better explanation.  While criticizing a country’s policies or actions, Nussbaum at the same time seems to suggest that a cosmopolitan can engender no love at all for one’s country.  She seems ungrateful for the opportunity to be able to be unpatriotic and have the freedoms that she may be arguing for in other parts of the world.  Appreciating and being thankful for what one has does not predispose a person to placing their country on a morally higher plane than the rest of the world.  Her concern is that declaring one’s identification with a particular country first and humanity second necessarily leads down a slippery slope toward racism.  This is overly simplistic, however.  One can be identified as American but still have a keen sense and an overriding concern for humanity as a whole.  Just because your can be identified with a particular group doesn’t mean that you won’t criticize that group or for that matter even like that group.  Despite this shortcoming, it would seem then that cosmopolitanism would be an informative perspective as Christians attempt to deal with the problems that patriotism can create.

 

For Christian Cosmopolitanism:  A 21^st Century Ethic

            We began with a fairly straightforward question.  Where we have arrived is perhaps unclear, given the variety of ethical and religious traditions that shape the debate on the issue of patriotism.  There is even diversity of opinion and practice within the various traditions.  Some churches may have flags in their sanctuary, while others are decidedly more counter culture.  In a world increasingly identified by American culture, economic, theological, and political dominance, it is especially important for American Christians to consider their positions.  This is perhaps best done though a synthesis of the some of the many divergent views of patriotism.

            The most important thing for a Christian to remember in defining their own patriotism is that church and state are separate.  The church is not meant to govern the people.  Likewise, the state is not a religious icon to be worshipped.  Ultimate authority continues to rest with God, and where the state and God conflict, God must always win.  The symbols of the state should not be combined with the symbols of the church.  This means no flags in sanctuaries and no patriotic hymns and also no crosses in government and no Ten Commandments monuments on courthouse lawns.

            One particular phrase of American patriotism that must be dealt with explicitly is “God Bless America.”  This phrase carries a good deal of baggage and a number of different meanings with it.  While asking God to bless America may not be offensive in most cases, the phrase also implies that God has especially blessed America and that it is a chosen people, much like the Jews of the Old Testament.  This is pure vanity.  Also, it could be construed, especially at military ceremonies, that we are asking God’s blessing on our military conquests.  Again, this is vanity to the highest degree.  More care could be taken in determining what context this phrase could be used in.  But since it could be construed in many different contexts to mean a blessing of military conquest, it perhaps is best to limit it only to those gatherings that make no reference to past, present, or future military action.

            Patriotism and Christian faith need not always contradict one another, however.  Like Bonhoeffer, ultimately we are tied to a land and a heritage regardless of whether or not we want to be.  It is that heritage and the ideals that the U.S. was founded upon that Christians can remain loyal to.  They are responsible and bound to the community they live in.  At the national level, that community is the United States.  A Christian patriotism then is one that is suspicious of government, rejects violence, responds to needs in the immediate community, supports and cherishes the ideals of democracy and freedom, and remains loyal to Christ above all else.  But a Christian patriotism is also one whose love knows know boundaries and has concern for those who suffer anywhere in the world, especially at the hands of one’s own government and its policies.  A Christian patriotism acknowledges its particular piece of the world, but embraces the entire world.

            God and country are often far too intertwined with one another.  This results in a distorted view of the U.S. and our place in the world.  It also results in a distorted faith.  Christian faith must be both cosmopolitan in nature but also deal with those within one’s own community.  Each suggestion offered above may not agree with everyone.  But above all else, a Christian must remain critical.  Never mind particular views on war or peace or whether they are a Republican, Democrat, or other.  Christianity in America must always remain separate enough from political life that it can criticize it.  In chorus with other religions, it can serve as a voice of morality and ethics and attempt to guide American society in the right direction.

Bibliography

Clements, Keith W.  A Patriotism For Today:  Dialogue With Dietrich Bonhoeffer. 

Bristol, Great Britain:  Bristol Baptist College.

 

Dohen, Dorothy.  Nationalism and American Catholicism.   New York:  Sheed

and Ward, 1967.

 

Hibben, John Grier.  The Higher Patriotism.   Freeport, New York:  Books for

Libraries Press, 1970.

 

Holy Bible.   Revised Standard Edition, http://www.hti.umich.edu/r/rsv/.

 

Mathews, Shailer.  Patriotism and Religion.   New York:  The Macmillan

Company, 1918.

 

Nussbaum, Martha C.  For Love of Country:  Debating the Limits of Patriotism.

Boston:  Beacon Press, 1996.

 

Sanders, Thomas G.  Protestant Concepts of Church and State.  New York:

Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1964.

 

Sittser, Gerald L.  A Cautious Patriotism:  The American Churches and the

Second World War.   Chapel Hill, NC:  University of North Carolina Press,

1997.