David wrote: In replying to my responses to the Stam article, you make a couple of assumptions and then proceed to build an argument. The first assumption is that I use the term “Patriotism” to mean “an all-encompassing binding allegiance to something other than God.” If that was what I meant by “Patriotism”, I would agree with you that it might be considered idolatry. However, my dictionary defines a “Patriot” as “a person who vigorously supports his country and its way of life.” I am not convinced that that is “fundamentally incompatible with Christian faith” nor idolatrous. Are you?

Nathan replied:

Yes, I am, because I can’t see much difference between your dictionary definition and the one I gave. My country and its way of life are not God, and they are not mandated by God. Why would Christians be providing vigorous support to any kingdom and way of life other than God’s? My country, like every other country so far as I can tell, exists to privilege and protect the interests of its citizens over and against the interests of others. The pursuit of self-interest is both the policy of the government in relation to the rest of the world and, despite occasional flashes of altruism in the face of disaster, the basis of the life-style most of us pursue. I am as implicated in that as everyone else, but as a follower of Jesus I am called to renounce that and repent. I cannot see any way in which I can both give allegiance to the Lord who makes a law of loving others as I love myself, and provide “vigorous support” to a nation and a way of life which are based on the pursuit of self-interest.

David:

I note your statement that “Those who are baptised into Christ have renounced all other allegiances and become citizens of the Kingdom of God.” I presume from this that you have renounced your Australian citizenship!

Nathan:

No, I haven’t, but “allegiance” is about what we choose to align our lives with, and I am called to day by day repent, renouncing those aspects of my life which are shaped by my allegiance to Australia and realigning my life with the Kingdom of God. It is possible to be an Australian Christian, because my Australianness is simply a given and not something that is needing vigorous support. It is not possible to be a Christian Patriot, because that would be to subject oneself to two masters and Christ was unequivocal about the chances of succeeding in that.

David:

I would prefer to say that when we become Christians we subject all other allegiances to our allegiance to Christ. It seems to me that it is biblical acceptable to be a citizen of the Kingdom and a citizen of an earthly state. Surely this is the position Paul adopted when in Acts 22 he asserted his Roman citizenship. Undoubtedly his allegiance to Christ was the primary one, but he was willing to acknowledge that he was a citizen of Rome.

Nathan:

Sure, but Paul was not providing vigorous support to Rome. Rather he was asserting his citizenship in order to challenge Rome to be true to its own laws. He was not arguing that the rights accorded to Roman citizens should be withheld from non-citizens. He was not arguing that because he was a Roman citizen he should vigorously defend Rome’s expansionist foreign policy or its attempts to get Christians to bring their faith into line with the religious pluralism of the empire. His assetion of his citizenship appears to have been a strategic statement of fact rather than a declaration of allegiance and vigorous support.

David:

The second assumption is that President Bush does not see himself as accountable to God for his actions. (I think that is the gist of your second criticism of my comments..)

Nathan:

No, I haven’t made myself clear there. I am saying that President Bush does not see himself as being accountable to the people for his actions. I claiming that his actions are mandated by God, he is saying that it is God who is accountable for what the President does. It is the extreme form of the Nuremburg defence: “I’m just following orders from above.”

David:

I note that you claim that to invoke the Lord’s name to legitimise government policy is blasphemy. Presumably this means that to invoke the Lord’s name in promoting alternative policies is also blasphemous. Is that your point of view? You write: “The Christian political leader who claims a divine mandate for their policies is abdicating responsibility for them in the worst possible way.” Does it follow that “Christians who claim a divine mandate for views opposing government policies are abdicating responsibility for their views in the worst possible way.”?

Nathan:

Almost. It is always blasphemy to invoke the name of the Lord to baptise one’s own agenda or one’s own interests. Whether one is an individual, a family, an organisation, a church, or a country, seeking to use the name of the Lord to give legitimacy to the pursuit of one’s own interests is blasphemy.

We can legitimately invoke the name of God in support of or in opposition to a principle, a value, or an ideal. Even then, whenever our own interests are bound up in the outcome, we need to be very very careful. When one steps beyond the principles and values and attempts to invoke God’s name to validate the specific strategy or the policy details, then one is almost invariably crossing the line into blasphemy.

This is particularly fraught for a Christian who accepts a political office. I think the nuances would run something like this. President Bush could legitimately say, “I have given this issue my prayerful consideration, and before God I believe that this course of action is the right one. However, I am ultimately responsible for the fidelity and accuracy of my attempts to discern the mind of Christ, and I will be judged by God and you, the people, for my decision.”

What a Christian cannot say, no matter what office they may hold, is “My thoughts ARE God’s thoughts, and my actions ARE precisely what God wishes to have done, and therefore this agenda wich I am pursuing IS God’s agenda. God is on our side.” That would be blasphemy.

Unfortunately, President Bush appears to favour the latter approach. I cannot see how his persistent invoking of the name of the Lord to validate the pursuit of American foreign policy interests can be seen by faithful Christians as anything other than blasphemy.

I don’t think it is good enough to excuse him on the grounds of an immature faith. If he wishes to name Christ as his Lord and Saviour, then he is subject to the Lord of the Church, and to the discipline of the Church. If he acts in ways which are fundamentally out of line with the teaching of the Lord and the Church, then he needs to be called to repentance and reconciliation. If we quietly tolerate his blasphemy on the grounds that he is immature and doesn’t know any better, then we are not only guilty of failing to provide adequate Christian nurture and formation to him as a member of the body of Christ, but we are also failing to teach the rest of our people about the nature and gravity of blasphemy.

The integrity and holiness of the name of the Lord; now there’s something worthy of our vigorous support!