I love this blog post, and I think you're a wonderful writer. And while I would agree on some level with what you're saying, I think you're mostly incorrect, and that is due to a faulty premise.

Your premise seems to be that American nationalism is just a worship of our political system, and that we are a "better Babylon". But that is false. This country was founded as a Christian nation, born out of the providence of God. "No King but Jesus" was our revolutionary battle cry. I love this country, and have strong nationalism, but at it's core, my love is because this country loves Jesus. To know why you love what you love tells you what you really love. And I love America because it is founded on the Christian God. Just because this country is falling away from that, doesn't mean we should fall away too. We should be working to restore our nation's reliance on Christ.

I've only got 1500 characters to work with so I'll just end it there.

Well put, Bob.

A very timely encouragement for us to subordinate our love for country below our love for Christ. I appreciate the quote from Campolo: “America may be the best Babylon the world has, but it is still Babylon nonetheless.” It is a very helpful paradigm to see the USA as Babylon and not Israel.

Nations are not Christian; people are. Our nation was certainly influenced by the Christian faith, but many of our founders had just fled the oppression of a Christian nation/kingdom. They desired a political nation with the freedom of religion without the establishment of a State religion. And IMHO, this is the best Babylon.

Thanks for the post!

The Pledge of Allegience states, "one nation, under God..."

Why cringe at that?

I'm sure there are some saints out there who can be said to have misplaced affections regarding America. I don't know what percentage of churches out there will have flag draped "sanctuaries" ,etc - maybe 5%?

I would rather suggest there is a far deeper area of misplaced affections in American churches. Habit patterns that lead believers to consume 86% of it's "giving" - it's institutionalized forms. Bob's own "missional" church only sends 14% of it's giving out the door to missions or benevolence. 86% is devoted to special facilities for large gatherings and hired help, etc., (per it's website 2010 budget) which is mostly to benefit those who give the money. If you think about it, it's an odd variety of "giving". It's really more like pooling.

Most Americans like Bob may have never seen or been told about a kind of church were 100% of giving goes beyond the givers. Maybe the scriptures about ministering "free of charge" and "refusing the right to be paid" have been buried in centuries of tradition. This may be a more wide spread devotion to Babylon than heart felt expression for our country. This approach to church life may warp the believers heart far more. Jesus said, "where your treasure is, there will your heart be also."

I'm sure Bob is thinking and working hard to build a different kind of church. But how can it be different if the money flow is the same as 99% of other churches?

What has a worse effect on the believers worship? Patriotism or Institutionalism?

Breathes there the man, with soul so dead,
Who never to himself hath said,
This is my own, my native land!
Whose heart hath ne'er within him burn'd,
As home his footsteps he hath turn'd
From wandering on a foreign strand!
If such there breathe, go, mark him well;
For him no Minstrel raptures swell;
High though his titles, proud his name,
Boundless his wealth as wish can claim;
Despite those titles, power, and pelf,
The wretch, concentred all in self,
Living, shall forfeit fair renown,
And, doubly dying, shall go down
To the vile dust, from whence he sprung,
Unwept, unhonour'd, and unsung.

Sir Walter Scott

Man- my articles always bring out the, uh, fringe element.

Tim- let's keep it on topic. Sorry, but this isn't about the house church. And those Scriptures about Paul ministering free of charge as a church planter among unreached people aren't hidden. They are sitting right next to the ones about the church's responsibility, once established, to care for certain elders and their families- you know. like 1 Tim 5:17-18. They are also sitting right next to the fact that every person on our team either raises support or works on the side, including myself.
But let's not hijack this thread, yeah?

And Victor?
I'm quoting Scripture about our identity as aliens and strangers and you answer with Sir Walter Scott? Okay... but what else you got??

CAPTCHA: Relabels The

Mathew 22:15 provides Jesus perspective on allegiance. – Jesus was not caught up in the trap the leaders attempted to set for him. They asked Jesus if it was lawful to pay tribute to their leaders through paying taxes. His comments were that they should render unto Ceaser what is his and God what is His.
There are no limitations in our constitution with regard to church and state. The phrase separation of church and state does not exist. All limitations in the constitution are on the government not the church. Thomas Jefferson, many years after the signing of the constitution, coined the term “a wall of separation between church and state.” He used the phrase to limit the power of government over the church. The meaning of this term has been perverted and turned backward over the years.
The 1st amendment was written to keep the government from having influence over the church. Our nation’s deceleration of independence speaks of the laws of nature and nature of God. Our constitution acknowledges the need for divine guidance. Our nation is great because of the acknowledgement of those who came before us of the need of divine providence
One of the first acts of congress was to print and distribute bibles. Our nation was born during a time of religious revival, Christian religious revival. When we turn from having pride for our heritage and thankfulness of our uniqueness in the world we turn from the model set forth by God.
The government is here to protect us and restrain evil. The church is here to minister God’s grace. To worry about offending another because of national pride is to say that we should be offended of the divine providence which set forth our nation.
Ceaser – the government - is to protect us and restrain evil, administers God’s justice, provide peace The government is national.
The Church – Ministers Gods grace, exposes evil, leads the great commission. The church is international.
As established by God they should work harmoniously. This is the uniqueness of our government that we celebrate every 4th of July. Good people need to speak up and show patriotism. There is nothing wrong with it, read David’s Psalm 137:5, this portrays an allegiance to a faithful nation.
Early Christians refused to say Ceaser is Lord and we must obey God over man. Our duty to our country and society is to be salt and light ; to remind others of its foundation and to preach the Lord Jesus Christ. There is no “dual allegiance” with this assignment.

And Victor, as long as you continue to think of America as Jerusalem (Psalm 137:5) all of that will make perfect sense for you.

CAPTCHA: acetate of

Allow me to add a third category to your question Tim:

What has a worse effect on the believers worship? Patriotism, Institutionalism, or Judgmentalism (coupled with apparent ignorance)?

As it is popular to say, remember the context in which the quote was presented. Your comment fails to do this.

Context? Even on the face of it, if I accept the premise that we are to show allegiance to a faithful nation, how in the world does America qualify?
Based on the supposed faith of people more than two centuries ago?
That certainly never saved Israel from judgment!
No- America can't be equated with David's resolve to remember Jerusalem any more than any other country could. The whole point is that there was nothing special about Jerusalem other than that was where God's temple was.
That position has been taken now, not by a city or a country but by a church.
It's just poor exegesis to try to pull "patriotism" out that verse.

CAPTCHA: as gabbled

Hey- We need Greg Boyd on this thread!! :)

CAPTCHA: few sardined

If you go and read American history we were founded more so on the drive to make money than the drive to serve God. Our pledge can say "One Nation Under God" but we speak in our actions, not in our words. God's name is vainly attached to each and every political campaign to "prove" that they're championing a higher cause.

Patriotism is pride at the core and pride leads to death of the soul. When we become so enamored with America that it affects the way we view others then we haven fallen prey to the sin. No one is immune from it. I'm guilty as any, but Bob does a great job to help open eyes to what is at the heart of our patriotism and the danger of it bleeding into our worship of God.

Good work Bob.

Thanks for this post. It's much needed, as evidenced by some of the comments here. I thought when I first read it that it would generate some flak.

Our last church had, and continues to have, a "patriotic service" each year on Sunday around July 4th. It was, and is, in my view, idolatrous. We generally skipped it.

I don't believe for a second that America or any other nation can claim to be Christian, and to make that claim is to misunderstand scripture, and in particular to misunderstand and subvert the Kingdom Jesus talked about and told us to seek first. We are to render unto ceaser and to render unto God. But by no means are we to render unto ceaser in a place and a setting in which we ought to be worshipping the One true God. That practice leads to idolatry.

I just love arguing history with one-armed paper hangers.

It is absolutely revisionist history to claim that this country was founded as a "Christian" nation. There were a few colonies which were founded on Christian principles. One might be able to make the argument for Plymouth and perhaps the very early years of Massachusetts Bay Colony. However, to lay claim that the southern colonies were founded on anything other than capitalistic greed is sophomoric at best and blind at worst.

The so-called founding fathers made a few statements referring to the Deity in the Declaration (not deceleration, an entirely different word by the way) and Constitution because it was the commonplace thing to do in the eighteenth century. If one did not do it, one risked losing their lives (as a witch or warlock), reputation, business. It was serious business to draft public documents and not include imprecations to the Deity. When one reads additional writings by many of these men who were schooled by the Enlightenment, we find that they were not evangelical fundamentalist Christians as we understand them today, but were rather Deists. Men who vaguely believed in some sort of supreme being but that being didn't really have much impact on the lives of humans.

Pulling from all of that and making the claim that we were even then (~220 years ago) a Christian nation is ludicrous. Making that claim now in our current environment is just silly. You may want to live in a Christian nation, but telling everyone that you do is really being a classroom bully. You are refusing to listen to your neighbor who may be Muslim or Jewish or Buddish or Native American or nothing at all and telling that neighbor this his or her concerns have no value to you. Why should any of those people listen to you if you refuse to listen to them? You are just being arrogant jerks.

Oh ... and Bob? I've participated in too many Revolutionary War battle re-enactments to count. Marched in literally hundreds of parades in a fife & drum unit re-enacting a RevWar fife & drum unit ... and this line ""No King but Jesus" was our revolutionary battle cry." is crap. I did those activities for 20 years and was deeply involved with people who researched every jot and tittle of the Rev War. I've helped write music and research it. I've worked with people at Williamsburg and I have never ever before heard this. So ... you'll need to get me a primary source on that.

"The best way to defeat the kingdom of God is to empower the church to rule the kingdom of the world--for then it becomes the kingdom of the world! The best way to get people to lay down the cross is to hand them the sword."
-Greg Boyd, The Myth of a Christian Nation pp94-95

"Was the golden age before, during, or after white Christians loaded five to six million Africans on cargo ships to bring them to their newfound country, enslaved the three million or so who actually survived the brutal trip? Was it during the two centuries when Americans acquired remarkable wealth by the sweat and blood of their slaves? Was this the time when we were truly "one nation under God," the blessed time that so many evangelicsls seem to want to take our nation back to?" pp98-99 Greg Boyd

Fantastic article Bob, loved it.
As for the fringe element and their comments... it doesn't really matter what ideals this country was founded on. We are strangers in a strange land, whether that is America or Iceland. We are exiles and to place our hope in our country or the government that runs it is idolatry. The Kingdom of God is the only thing Christians should be in alliance with. I know I haven't really added much to what Bob said, but it's my dime.

Errr ... if I'm not mistaken, by the time of our Revolutionary War, Puritans had been almost completely marginalized, except for some outer fringe colonies like upper Massachusetts (that we now know as Maine), the hinterlands of New Hampshire, etc. They may have still had churches, but they no longer held any sort of political sway. There would be very few colonists who might have had roots in Cromwell's England by that time and been able to make that leap.

I've tried really hard to read some of those "Christian" sources for history and usually make it about three pages before literally throwing the book across the room. I've read primary sources and secondary sources for fun and games almost all my adult life. And to see the liberties that these authors take with them makes me really angry. Willful ignorance is one of the things that just makes me see red without much provocation. From what I can tell, those authors are making a lot of money and stirring up hornets nests. It's very bad news ... and not helpful for the gospel.

My life is hidden in Christ before God. My home is wherever my Savior dwells, so...heaven it is. I have citizenship in the not yet. Still I live in the now, I make a home (albeit a temporary one) in this nation - wonderful and horrible as it is all at once.

In this Sunday's worship, which just so happens to land on the U.S.A.'s Independence Day, I will celebrate the freedoms my God has given within this nation, even if it is but a dim reflection of the freedom Jesus Christ fought to win for me and you. Our church will sing Battle Hymn of the Republic, God of Our Fathers, and God Bless Our Native Land, but we will begin with Lift High the Cross.

We will hold up the tension we stand in between the now and the not yet, between allegiance to a temporal government while living here and the allegiance to the eternal God that trumps any allegiance to anything here.

Luther's understanding of the two kingdoms is very helpful here. My God reigns - in heaven and on earth. In heaven, without an intermediary; and on earth, through the mediation of the governing authorities He put in charge to provide peace and freedom within which His Gospel can be shared, which transcends borders, classes, ethnicities, and nationalities. God bless America -- so the Christians within her can spread the Gospel throughout the world.

You've gotta love the arrogant, unchristian condescending tone of all those who agree with the writer.

"However, all that being said, for those people claiming the U.S. is founded on Christian princples they will never read a primary source, nor be burdened with reading primary sources..."

Yeah, sorry we're not all as smart as you. I bet Jesus wasn't even as smart as you. I bet Tony Campolo makes Jesus look like a 5th grader. Dang man, I wish we could be as smart as those you guys.

Which is funny... because to the majority of the world, christians are dumber than 5th graders. Maybe Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens are right...

Now, there's a non-sequitur. There's arrogance and humility on both sides of the argument. That speaks nothing to the 1. veracity of certain historical claims 2. correctness of my interpretations of various concepts in Scripture and what they mean for us today.
To sum up: chill. Please.

Bob … well said, sir.

The oft-cited passage regarding rendering to God and Caesar (recorded in all three synoptic gospels) is, indeed, instructive. In responding to his questioners’ attempt at entrapment disguised as a question about paying taxes, Jesus used a coin bearing the image of the emperor, a reminder that what was due Caesar was temporal and corruptible, and hence not only the emperor but the empire (not to mention the implicit caution against affection for that which is represented by an image). Jesus’ further retort silenced his Jewish inquisitors; they knew perfectly well that the LORD God is holy, eternal, and sovereign. Only the LORD is worthy of worship.

Scripture is clear: the common outcome of devotion expressed toward anything that is corruptible or temporal is idolatry.

Karl Barth knew well the dangers of nationalistic fervor in the life of the church, when Caesar is made welcome and honored. He warned against such “alien prophecies” incorporated into what only is properly Christ’s alone. Sooner or later, he writes, such prophecies “will make an open bid for sole dominion—the prophecy of Jesus Christ asks to be excused and avoids such incorporation. If it is subjected to such combinations, the living Lord Jesus and His Word depart, and all that usually remains is the suspiciously loud but empty utterance of the familiar name of this Prophet. ‘No one can serve two masters’ (Mt. 6:24). No man can serve both the one Word of God called Jesus Christ and other divine words” (Barth, Church Dogmatics IV, 102).

Excellent! Thank you.

In all these posts as well as in the original article, I don't see any disagreement that our allegiance to Christ is ultimate while allegiance and devotion to anything else must be secondary and conditional. But I think that Hyatt goes too far when he says "...nationalism, in any degree, is misplaced affection".
I love my wife more than I love other people. That does not mean I worship her or think she's perfect, but I'll wave her flag any day and defend her against all comers.
No analogy is perfect, but it is OK to love your own country more than others. You have to be realistic about the failings of your country, but the critics need to honestly give the US credit for some huge accomplishments and many good things. Freedom of conscience is not the least. The combining of freedom and the rule of law contrasts favorably with history and much of the rest of the world. Where other countries have done well, give them credit, but this is the country to which we owe a combination of appreciation, allegiance and responsibility. Call that pride if you will, but it's enough reason to fly the flag.

patriotism is syncretism

Not much to say other than to let Bob know that he's spot on with his post!

Wayne, Scripturally, you are commanded to love your wife. You are warned about your devotion to Caesar.
It's not about giving the USA credit. I think it's a great country as far as countries go. Like I said- the best Babylon we've got. But it's still Babylon. You are a citizen of a different country.

To think this country has ever been a "christian nation" is wishful thinking at best. While I certainly am grateful for the liberty and relative freedoms in this country my allegience is solely to the kingdom of God.

Wayne,

The husband-wife relationship is at its best a reflection of the image of God and of God's love for us and the world (see Genesis), and love in that relationship is a divine command; at its best, it reflects creation and relationship as God originally intended it to be.

I get the analogy, but I think it's more than imperfect; it's deeply flawed. Allegiance to a worldly power gets nothing close to the status of marriage in Scripture. I agree there's lots to like about America -- no argument there. But affectiona and allegiance to a nation ought never even come close to usurping worship of Jesus Christ, yet that is what happens in many churches.

I certainly agree about the problems of co-mingled patriotism in the worship service. I still love my country. I am thankful to live here, not in a proud way, but in a humble way knowing it was God who gave me this life.

Y'all need to lighten up. Just food for thought, it's probably okay to be thankful that we live in a country where this blog and comment section can exist without fear of government interference...

Bob

"Man- my articles always bring out the, uh, fringe element."

Is this supposed to insult me? No offense taken. :)

"Tim- let's keep it on topic. Sorry, but this isn't about the house church. ...But let's not hijack this thread, yeah?"

Your thread is fundamentally about misplaced affections. You are taking a sliver and calling it a log. I am seeking to expose the log in the eyes of 90% of believers. I used to have this log in my eye so I could not see. God helped me remove it.

"And those Scriptures about Paul ministering free of charge as a church planter among unreached people aren't hidden."

Ok, you have a long list of theological/rational excuses to justify continuing traditions of men. Don't mind me.

"They are sitting right next to the ones about the church's responsibility, once established, to care for certain elders and their families- you know. like 1 Tim 5:17-18."

Caring for elders and their families does not require even 1% of the giving. Did not Paul teach the Ephesian elders in Acts 20 to follow his example of meeting his own needs? This tells us what 1 Tim. 5 really means. Maybe he was just trying to impress them with his sincerity.

"They are also sitting right next to the fact that every person on our team either raises support or works on the side, including myself."

This may be true, but where the money goes betrays the reality that perpetual dependency oriented leadership dynamic is in place. Also the web article encouraging your saints to be producers not consumers shows a sad percentage of saints there like the consuming routines. As long as they are buying expert help to make their gathering seem powerful, they want a ROI. Their heart and affections are now chained. Their hearts will not go where their giving does not go. This is a severe worship problem. The solution is not about merely meeting in a home.

The United States is unlike any other country in the history of man in that it is a nation that, by its own declaration, is "...of the people, by the people, and for the people". That is WHY there are "Brits and Kenyans and Malaysians sitting in our pews." There is no king in this country (though many would like to be) but only a temporary leader chosen by us. The United States is the first country ever to prevent government control of its churches. Isn't something to rejoice about? It was those terrible founding fathers who gave us that. When people pledge allegiance to this country, they are not rendering anything to Caesar but rather a commitment to defend and protect each other. There IS no Caesar in the U.S.

For those who like to claim no Christian influence in the minds of the founders, it is obviously a matter of the lens through which they choose to read historical writings and the choice of writings they choose to read. It becomes like Bob's straw man argument of churches worshiping the USA and replacing love of Jesus Christ. He never identifies any particular church but merely speaks in sweeping generalities.

Well,this is another of the annual 4th of July "America is a terrible place" messages given at this site. I'm amazed at the judgementalism and contempt for others displayed here by those on the left who claim love for their fellowman. Does this include patriotic Christians (who have done more to feed the poor, assimilate other races and send the gospel to the world than any other group of people)?

Christians just love telling other people what to do.

LOVE THE USA MORE. NO! LOVE THE USA LESS. DON'T READ THIS BOOK. BUT YOU BETTER READ THIS BOOK. YOUR CHURCH IS TOO BIG, YOUR CHURCH IS TOO SMALL. YOU'RE READING IT WRONG.

Yeacccchhhhh.

Mark, thanks for your helpful insight. Other than "telling people what to do or think", clearly the ONLY other available option is to mock everything. Glad you highlighted that.

I don't know what this says about us but...I have read many of these back and forths on Out of Ur on many different subjects, and the vitriol that spews forth whenever politics/patriotism is broached is breathtaking. You'd think I was reading a back and forth between Keith Olberman and Rush Limbaugh instead of brothers and sisters in Christ!

If we were truly one in Christ, this thread may have many of the same points but would have a whole different feel to it. The anger shown by many on either side shows a misplaced idolotry to one's own patriotism/position on this issue.

As for my two cents, call me a dual citizen but...
I DO appreciate this nation's history and many of the things it stands for...
I DO know that our past isn't perfect (not unlike many/most of our biblical heroes and Israel as a whole), and those unpleasant truths should not be swept under the rug.
We SHOULD strive to be a better nation now and in the future (just as each of us should strive to be better as we travel through life).
I WILL celebrate the 4th and this nation at parades, fireworks displays, displaying flags, singing songs, etc.
BUT...
The Church is GOD'S!!!!

Tim,
"I used to have this log in my eye so I could not see. God helped me remove it."
Clearly. You keep thinking that. Just be careful about sudden turns of your head. Wouldn't want anyone to get hurt by flying lumber.

Melody- This is the farthest thing from an "America is a terrible place" article. I have lived and traveled around the world. There's no place I'd rather live than here, though there are many other wonderful places in the world with just as much freedom as we have.
If you read my piece as "America is awful" you need to read it again.
It's not about bashing america, but IS about, in Jesus' words "Rendering to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's."
It's about how we celebrate a fun and significant national holiday as Christians, first, and the place we allow the country we live in to occupy in our hearts second. Nothing else.

I think the level of heat generated by this discussion and others like it shows it's worthy of discussion- this is an issu that's hits pretty close to home with many of us, on both sides of the debate.
How we relate to government has been an issue for Christians from the very beginning. I don't know why we would think it would not be an issue for us.

Here is an observation: Especially since 9/11 and the entrance of the USA in two wars, both Memorial Day and Independence Day have become big patriotic days of worship for some churches and some even do both with the same songs and recognition of our freedoms and the sacrifices of our military men and women. Throw in Flag Day and a possible VBS week of saying pledges, many churches overindulge in patriotic fervor. I, on the other hand, have patriotic withdrawal and usually go serve in Junior church or the Nursery on those days.

Amen
After hearing that the church that i am playing drums at this weekend is playing America the Beautiful into How Great Thou Art I couldn't decide how to react. I wanted to say something but knew that the argument was not worth it. Instead I just decided not to play and let someone else.
Just cannot stand behind that message.

Kyle, "O beautiful, for spacious skies, for amber waves of grain; for purple mountain majesties above the fruited plain. America, America God shed His grace on thee. And crown thy GOOD with BROTHERHOOD from sea to shining sea." Expressing appreciation for the beauty God has created in this country and asking for God's grace on one's nation is a terrible thing in what way? What have I missed?

Kevin - well said.

As in many biblical/theological debates, they tend to polarization. I think this is why Paul told us to study to show ourselves approved unto God, workmen not needing to be ashamed, rightly dividing the Word of truth. Rightly dividing (lit. "cuttting straight") is where I think we miss it quite often. We cut crooked. We get too much on one side, or not enough on the other, or in some cases we don't even cut, we put it all on one side! In this case, I think the proper cutting is simply Kingdom #1, Nation #2. Not Nation #1, and not Nation zero.

The Bible has a lot to say about nations. For example "Righteousness EXALTS a nation, but sin is a REPROACH to any people". There IS a place for recognizing and appreciating good in a nation, and there is also a place for dealing with sin. That verse speaks of BOTH. Both are certainly true for America. I think the Church SHOULD deal with both in it's ministry for whatever nation it finds itself in. On the "exalts" side, it should not be worshiping your nation - that's pretty stupid, but appreciating and recognizing the good, wherever it might be. On the "reproach" side, not just ranting and trying to save your nation via moralism, that's wrong too, as only the gospel can do that, but nevertheless we should speak and vote and act etc. etc. what is righteous. It's OK to talk about what is righteous and what is not. It's not the gospel, but it's OK.

However, at a much higher level, we know only the Kingdom of God, manifested through the Church, and the preaching of the gospel, is the real answer for the world. That must hold our ultimate attention and allegiance. Jesus alone is our Lord and Savior, who alone is worthy of our worship.

So, missing "cutting straight" on July 4th is to not say anything about America, "I'm just going to worship God" "I don't want to be nationalistic" - or - to turn your worship service into either a blast or bless fest where the focus is so on America that the message of the Kingdom, the Church, and the gospel are lost.

We are going to do on July 4th what we always do when we deal with nation issues (and July 4th seems like a likely candidate of a Sunday to deal with nation issues :-)). It's Kingdom 1st, and anything to do with nation, good or bad, 2nd. We'll worship God, we'll thank God for and celebrate the good, we'll face the bad, and we'll go on and preach the gospel of Jesus Christ who is the author of the good and the answer for all the bad, everywhere! Thy Kingdom come!

"O beautiful, for spacious skies, for amber waves of grain; for purple mountain majesties above the fruited plain. America, America God shed His grace on thee. And crown thy GOOD with BROTHERHOOD from sea to shining sea." Expressing appreciation for the beauty God has created in this country and asking for God's grace on one's nation is a terrible thing in what way? What have I missed?

I see two possible pitfalls here that you might have missed. 1) While it may be sung with the best of intentions, the song excludes our brothers and sisters in Christ who are not American. That's most of God's kingdom on earth today. 2) There is always the danger that it will be sung and/or perceived not as a prayer for God's grace and mercy, but as an expression of a fait accompli for the nation. This is not uncommon when nationalism gets a foothold in the realm of faith.

captcha: kiwis translated

The fact that a clear call to understand the fundamental character of the Church as a supra-national body who proclaims a better day and way is coming gets turned into "You hate America" and "You don't get the beauty of our Christian nation" only demonstrates one thing...

if this article "gets your goat" you had a "goat" to be got.

Why not just own it and do some soul searching about what is, at best, only a murky exercise in "gratitude" that tends to veer to a silly belief in American "exceptionalism"?

The shoe clearly fits, so thank you Bob Hyatt. Keep it going...all that budget money at Evergreen is clearly well spent if it helps you have space to think, reflect and produce some good theology for us to grapple with. thank you. thank. you. thank you. thank you.

I agree that we should keep Americanism/Patriotism out of our worship. There is more than just a hint of impropriety in it and on this basis alone we should not include it. Many of the most prominent men involved in our nation's founding were deists. The Declaration of Independence is a deistic document that has nothing to do with the God of Scripture.

"The fact that a clear call to understand the fundamental character of the Church as a supra-national body who proclaims a better day and way is coming gets turned into "You hate America" and "You don't get the beauty of our Christian nation" only demonstrates one thing...
if this article "gets your goat" you had a "goat" to be got."

Wow. Pithy and pointed and right on target. Well played!

And for whomever made the comment- If there is no Caesar in the US why do you pay your taxes? Why do you use Rom 13 to commend obedience to Government when the Government they were talking about is 2000 years in the past?
Yeah- Caesar is alive and well. We still owe certain things to "him." And we still owe certain other things to God. Read my last couple paragraphs again, make sure you celebrate well, just make sure you are worshiping the right thing and proclaiming allegiance to the right King come Sunday.

CAPTCHA: conciser told

Tony Campolo puts it this way: “America may be the best Babylon the world has, but it is still Babylon nonetheless.”

Just as a point of theology on the above quote - a nation is not ever "Babylon". Babylon is a spiritual system devoid of God, and controlled by Satan. A nation can choose to either drink of that toxic system or not. It can also drink of something better if it so chooses. Rev. 14.8 makes this clear.

Okay, so who wants to tackle THIS can of worms: If our allegiance is to God and not to governments, then why do we approve of government using its powers of coercion to bring about (or to justify its laws as bringing about) the Kingdom of God, or some good within that Kingdom, as specifically Kingdom activity? Should we just stop using Kingdom rhetoric and use civic rhetoric instead? Should we just take no part in government at any level, as the Anabaptists do? (I think, at least, that they have a point....)

And please note: The blessings of liberty are made possible in part by the laws of our nation. To be thankful for the laws that guarantee us this liberty might not be a bad thing.

I think the major point is while we can love our country (and I do) we should be loving God and God's Kingdom more. Patriotism isn't bad but unrestrained can lead to bad things. As citizens of this country we can feel free to celebrate our nations Holiday's but they are not God's Holidays.

typical. the culture has influenced the church more than the church has influenced culture. and these comments for the most part show the marxist socialist education that America has been taught. as someone who grew up in Cccp I fear for you and your God

Sorry, I find Bob's article unconvincing.

"Patriotism...makes little sense to a people called to live as aliens and strangers..."

By this same logic, one could replace love for one's country with
* love for one's family members
* love for one's own congregation/denomination
* love for one's neighbors
* love for one's spouse
and claim that the love has come dangerously close to idolatry.

Sure, the patriotism thing can be carried too far. Any love, except love for God, can be carried too far. But love is usually a good thing, not a bad thing, and more of it is usually better than less.

Because I love Christ, I am supposed to love my neighbor. That does not mean that I uncritically accept all his actions, nor does it mean that I have substituted him for God. I love him because Christ loves him.

I suppose that Christ wants me to love women other than my wife, but not to the same degree or in the same way.

I love my country because Christ loves it with his redeeming love. And because this is where the providence of God has placed me. I can love and pray for other nations as well, but my love for them will not be precisely the same, because I don't have the same knowledge of/relationship with them. If I immerse myself in another nation's culture (for example, by going as a missionary) then my love for that nation will deepen. But until I do, to claim that I love Mexico, Germany, Iran or North Korea just as much as I love the U.S. is just window-dressing and faux openmindedness.

Instead of suggesting that we ought to love our nation less, wouldn't it be healthier to say that we should love the rest of the world and pay attention to others' interests a bit more than we do?

J.L.-
Scripturally, you are commanded to love your wife. You are warned about your devotion to Caesar.
And yes- love of spouse, children, etc can become idolotrous. Jesus said as much.
My point is that while I have lots of warm feelings for my country of origin, the nationalism inherent in "patriotism" is by definition crossing the line and the worship of God on this Sunday out not to be mixed with the worship/appreciation/love of anything else. Please feel free to express gratitude to God for your freedom during the service, but don;t wave the flag and all the rest. It doesn;t belong in a service dedicated to the worship of God.

It's not about giving the USA credit. I think it's a great country as far as countries go. Like I said- the best Babylon we've got. But it's still Babylon. You are a citizen of a different country.

Hi Bob, thanks for responding. I'm not arguing for flag-waving in church; I don't think that's appropriate either. But I still don't buy the argument that patriotism (by the working definition that many of us follow) automatically crosses the line. Yes, Scripture warns us about devotion to Caesar, but Jesus also said "give to Caesar..." and I can't believe that he meant we should give Caesar money but no smidgen of loyalty. Paul was a Roman citizen, and although he did not see Rome through rose-colored glasses, I do see in his words some positivity toward Rome.
It's not a matter of worship or first love, but of citizenship and seeking the peace and prosperity of the nation in which God has placed us, even if that nation is Babylon (Jer 29).

Bob, thanks for a thought provoking article. It makes some great observations. Personally I am a very patriotic person who has no king but Jesus.

My patriotism is expressed in prayer for my country, participation in its process... (voting) and living in the freedom provided me by its structure. I do not think that to be patriotic is to be disloyal to the Kingdom to which I belong. I am not a citizen of another country but rather another Kingdom, one that transcends boundaries. You state we are citizens of another country but to that I think you are off. I am loyal to a KING and as a part of his kingdom I live under the laws of this land.

To be loyal patriotic is not being exclusionary to any other nationality. I travel and speak all over the world, I go as a follower of Jesus, but my passport says I am a citizen of the USA. The people I speak to do not see this as exclusionary but rather as an expression of my freedom my country provides and an expression of the Faith I have in OUR ONE TRUE KING. This is not exclusion.

To love my country is not in opposition to loving my God. My brothers and sisters in India love God and love India. My brothers and sisters in Africa love God and their own country in Africa. My brothers and sisters in Latin america love God and their respective countries in Latin America.

This message you speak in this blog would not fly in the countries and places I have served. Loving your country and loving your God are not in opposition. How we love our country is shaped by our love for God. Again thanks for your article.

On further reflection, i realize that what's bugging me is this. As a missional and incarnational Christian, I should represent Christ to the community in which I am placed. And that community is diverse. There are many sociopolitical tribes in the U.S. Some tribes wave flag more than others. I happen to live in a liberal university town where most people are loathe to wave the flag, and a flag in church would be an abomination. But drive a few miles out of town and you will see the flag displayed prominently everywhere. I want to understand and respect both points of view, because I think that they both have something to offer. Perhaps some of the out-of-towners do cross over the line with too much nationalism. But plenty of in-towners cross over another line by placing themselves apart from -- nay, above -- the culture in which God has placed them by pretending that they have no special relationship to it. The patriotism-by-definition-crosses-the-line language just seems unnecessarily dogmatic, and I'm not at all surprised that the article sparked strong reactions.

Bob,

I normally like your commentary, but you have created a false dichotomy on this issue. I can love God and my country. I simply love them differently.

I have chosen to love my wife. I am more devoted to her than any other human. I also love my brother. However, if there is ever an issue of where my true loyalty lies, my brother will lose and my wife will win.

We can love our country in the way we can love anything in this life that is fallen and affected by sin. My allegiance to Christ has never been affected by my love of ice cream, U2 music, or my country. They are different loves, and Christ always wins.

You said, "And that means that nationalism, in any degree, is misplaced affection." Really? I have to root for the Christians in the Olympics or the World Cup. I can't proudly cheer for my fellow Americans.

I'm proud that I am an America. I am deeply grateful for the freedom my citizenship affords. I wish (and work so that) those from other countries have the same opportunities I do simply because of who my parents are. I respect those who serve our country. Certainly America, like any other fallen institution/system is full of good and bad. However, I can love it nevertheless without it interfering with my love of Christ.

Loving one's country is like loving one's family. Fallen, yes. Broken, yes. But still my family.

Bob, certainly you believe we can love fallen and broken institutions with a different sort of love and allegiance than our devotion to Christ (i.e. families, churches, etc.). However, your article doesn't reflect that reality. It seems to be all-or-nothing when it comes to our country. That's a false dichotomy.

AMEN Dave Terpstra and Steve A. I love my God AND I love my country. I worship God and am thankful for my freedom to do so.

Yesterday, my wife and I visited a church in another community about 30 miles from our home. This church is in the shadow of Ft. Hood. During the service, one of the ministers acknowledged that it was the Fourth of July. He then spoke for a few minutes emphasizing that while we are thankful for all that this means, we are even more thankful for all that Christ means. He then elaborated on all that Christ had done for us. I thought it was well done and clearly placed the emphasis on our loyalty to Christ while being sensitive and appreciative to the cultural moment.

Bob says, “Scripturally, you are commanded to love your wife. You are warned about your devotion to Caesar.” It's interesting to me that the only portion of scripture that is used as reference for this statement is the one from Matthew where the Pharisees are seeking to entrap Jesus. The only question they asked him was if they should pay taxes and the only answer he gave was, “yes”. And even there, the story was about the wickedness of the Pharisees, not about Caesar. Even reading between the lines I can find no warning about devotion to Caesar. Since this was a subject that Jesus never even brought up, why is it such a big deal for you?

Ah, what the Emperor Constantine has wrought. Swap the Imperial ensigns - i.e., Stars & Stripes - for the Cross, add a healthy dose of Imperial exceptionalism, evoke the threat of Imperial enemies all around and within, shake (or stir) with exclusionist rhetoric, and there you are

Nope, no trace of the Gospels there.

G.

Sheerahkahn - You had me up until that last reference to OT prohibitions against "homosexuality" (a bit of an anachronism, really, since "homosexuality" as a sexual orientation is a relatively contemporary - i.e., "modern" - phenomenon, which simply didn't exist in ancient Palestine).

But if your overarching point is the critical importance of putting OT / NT writings within an historical context, then you're quite correct. In which case, Jews - and by extension, early Christians, who were considered (and considered themselves, initially) a sect of Judaism - did find themselves in difficult circumstances with respect to the deification of the Roman emperors and the concomitant requirement that citizens and subjects of Rome worship the same.

While the Gospels only record one instance of Jesus actually saying anything about Jewish duties to Rome, there are many other recorded statements regarding the Kingdom of God / Heaven which are quite relevant to Bob's original point. And while the Kingdom of God / Heaven is a subject of contentious historical debate, one might hope that it would be unequivocally clear that Jesus' did not consider that kingdom as a political alternative to Rome. This quite clearly distinguishes Jesus' agenda from the Zealots', who quite vigorously pursued a literal alternative to Roman rule.

Many contemporary Evangelicals have substituted Jesus' kingdom for the path of the Zealots. And, as you noted, we saw how that all panned out for them in 70AD.

G.

sheera, apparently seeing what you want to see is possible if you just read the right books and do the right 'secular' research. Why is reading the actual account here and the obvious context simply not enough?

Mat 22:15-22 Then went the Pharisees, and took counsel how they might entangle him in his talk. (The whole point of this exchange happened right here) And they sent out unto him their disciples with the Herodians, saying, Master, we know that thou art true, and teachest the way of God in truth, neither carest thou for any man: for thou regardest not the person of men. Tell us therefore, What thinkest thou? Is it lawful to give tribute unto Caesar, or not? But Jesus perceived their wickedness (but I thought they just were trying to figure out where their allegiance should lie), and said, Why tempt ye me, ye hypocrites? Shew me the tribute money. And they brought unto him a penny. And he saith unto them, Whose is this image and superscription? They say unto him, Caesar's. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's. (At this point they began to argue among themselves as to whether flag waving and having warm fuzzy thoughts about being a Roman was right or wrong - and they are still having the discussion to this day) When they had heard these words, they marvelled, and left him, and went their way.

sheera, did you read the scripture?

"The whole history of these books [the Gospels] is so defective and doubtful that it seems vain to attempt minute inquiry into it: and such tricks have been played with their text, and with the texts of other books relating to them, that we have a right, from that cause, to entertain much doubt what parts of them are genuine. In the New Testament there is internal evidence that parts of it have proceeded from an extraordinary man; and that other parts are of the fabric of very inferior minds. It is as easy to separate those parts, as to pick out diamonds from dunghills." -Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Adams, January 24, 1814

"I believe in one God, Creator of the universe.... That the most acceptable service we can render Him is doing good to His other children.... As to Jesus ... I have ... some doubts as to his divinity; though it is a question I do not dogmatize upon, having never studied it, and think it needless to busy myself with it now, when I expect soon an opportunity of knowing the truth with less trouble." - Benjamin Franklin (Alice J. Hall, "Philosopher of Dissent: Benj. Franklin," National Geographic, Vol. 148, No. 1, July, 1975, p. 94.)

Bob,

I suppose I should check in on these discussion more often. Attention has probably moved on.

But. Every time I think you're starting to make some sense, you then go too far. E.g.

"It's not about giving the USA credit. I think it's a great country as far as countries go. Like I said- the best Babylon we've got. But it's still Babylon. You are a citizen of a different country."

Yes, I am a citizen of the Kingdom of God, and that is my greatest loyalty. But that does not preclude being a citizen of this country. Several writers on this thread have tried to point that out.

There has been a serious lack of careful definition in your comments. What do you (or rather, Tony Compolo) mean that this or any country is Babylon? If you mean that any country must be a secondary loyalty, I agree completely. If you mean that this country is as bad as the Roman empire, to which Babylon in Revelation refers, then you contradict many of the complimentary things you have said about the U.S. Or is it something else?

Speaking of definitions, you wrote

"the nationalism inherent in "patriotism" is by definition crossing the line"

What definition? and where is the line?

Let me offer a definition of the line: Patriotism becomes idolatry when Christians fail to hold their country to Biblical standards.

With that understanding in mind, we should be able to sort out the symbolism of our worship, perhaps putting the American flag under a cross instead of side by side with a "Christian flag", whatever that is.

Thank you for this post. I always feel so uncomfortable at our church on July 4 and Memorial day, singing patriotic songs and especially when we go beyond just appreciating the military but idolizing them. I appreciate the sacrifice of our service men and women, but other countries have a military too that has sacrificed for their country. What makes America different is the First Amendment, which allows us to worship and share the Gospel freely.

sheera, The most basic rule for interpretation of any text (whether Biblical or other) is to first read the text itself and go with the obvious meaning. If the text is confusing or obscure, further research is necessary. I celebrate historical framework research and study/review of other historical documentation of the manners and mores of the day in which the text was written. What bothers me here is that not one single commenter, or even Bob himself, has addressed the apparent context of this Biblical statement. The context of the comment - if I may say so - is that the Pharisees were looking for a way to trip Jesus up and make him say something that they could use to arrest him. Jesus simply refused to bite their bait. They were NOT interested in knowing the mind of God regarding where their loyalties were to lie but rather in engaging him in a controversy. Look at what we have going on here. Bob (for whom I have much respect in other areas, btw) threw out the bait, and we all took it (on both sides). I don't mean in any way to imply that Bob is being like a Pharisee here, but simply to point out that what often happens in sermons is preaching to the preconceived purpose and looking for some scripture to back it up. Most folks don't know their Bible well enough to discern when this happens and it is particularly difficult for a lay person to point it out. Hence, there are abundant misconceptions about a great many things that people think the Bible says that it simply doesn't.

sheera, I entered this discussion because I truly believe that this is a type of watershed issue for contextual misrepresentation and also because I was hopeful that a true give-and-take could occur, especially with folks like you who are not just the typical drive-by commenters. I apologize that I have come off as disrespecting you and recognize that a blog forum with strangers is limited at best. As for the ice-cream cone, I'm torn between Jamoca Almond Fudge and Chocolate Chip.

No man can serve two masters. If you pledge allegiance to both Jesus and the flag, someday you will be forced to choose which vow to break. Hence uttering the Pledge of Allegiance in church is nothing less than an act of idolatrous rebellion against Jesus himself.

"Yes, I am a citizen of the Kingdom of God, and that is my greatest loyalty. But that does not preclude being a citizen of this country. Several writers on this thread have tried to point that out."

As though saying it over and over will make it so?

"And they admitted that they were aliens and strangers on earth. People who say such things show that they are looking for a country of their own. If they had been thinking of the country they had left, they would have had opportunity to return. Instead, they were longing for a better country—a heavenly one. Therefore God is not ashamed to be called their God, for he has prepared a city for them."

If, like Paul, you need to use an earthly citizenship for a specific reason (eg, to defend yourself in the case of unjust imprisonment), fine. But don't revel in it.
Your primary identity is an exile- an alien and stranger in this place. And while that doesn't mean turning in your driver's license, it probably should impact how you think, worship and especially celebrate in the context of a gathered church community. You must love the people of the place you are called to live in, but don't become enamored of the system/place itself.

Discussion seems to be drying up, and that is probably a good thing, given the intransigence seen in many of the comments above. Regardless of our disagreements about the relative merits/dangers of patriotism, can we at least agree to heed the words of Jeremiah 29:7 which were written about Babylon?

"Also, seek the peace and prosperity of the city to which I have carried you into exile. Pray to the LORD for it, because if it prospers, you too will prosper."

Bob,

I think you missed the nuances of some of your critics. Many of us don't disagree with your most recent comments. We know where our primary identity lies. We don't believe we should be "enamored" with the USA. However, unlike you, we believe there are some "degrees of nationalism" that can be appropriate. There is no scriptural command to love your country, but there is no prohibition either.

In Ephesians 2:19 Paul tells Gentile Christians: "you are no longer foreigners and strangers, but fellow citizens with God's people and also members of his household..."

We have a new citizenship and new household we belong to. Does that preclude our previous citizenship and household?

In some circumstances, yes. Jesus tells us to hate our father and mother in comparison to our devotion to him. However, Paul tells us that if we don't provide for our relatives/household, we are worse than an unbeliever. We are instructed to love our spouses, so normally, loving members of our household is acceptable.

So if we are members of God's household, but can still love our household (as long as that love does not interfere with our devotion to Christ), why can't we love the country we are a citizen of (as long as that devotion doesn't interfere with our love of Christ)?

Why does loving one's country necessitate "losing sight of the better place"? Does loving your family necessitate losing sight of the better family?

Fire is a good servant but a bad master.

Interesting that someone mentioned "No King but King Jesus." From my understanding, this was a quote from the radical Fifth Monarchists of England. Their ideology did well among some of the radical artisans of Boston, but it did not become the ideology of the new Republic based on property. Not taking a side here, just pointing out an interesting fact.