Christians and Patriotism

[NulliuSINverba]

I was recently reminded that Christian scriptures offer contradictory instructions regarding obedience to earthly lawmaking.

Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and you will be commended. For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also as a matter of conscience.

This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants, who give their full time to governing. Give to everyone what you owe them: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.

Seems clear enough. Christians are instructed to obey their governments. In fact, Paul even goes so far as to assert that governments are instituted by God.

It's seems like the general consensus ballpark estimate is that Paul's Epistle to the Romans was written some time around 57 AD. The Western (read: Roman) half of the Roman Empire would endure until 476 AD and the Eastern Roman Empire would hang on until 1453 AD. Clearly, there was a lot of Roman Empire left to be had.

So of course, when you're talking to the Romans during the height of The Roman Empire, doesn't it make sense to assure them that your church is unquestionably loyal to the state? And although Paul apparently wasn't ready to reassure the Romans that their emperors were deities (which was what Roman Emperors were wont to declare), he was perfectly happy to assure them that their government was in fact ordained by his God.

How does one render "Have your cake and eat it" into Latin?

Q. - Do you suppose that Paul would have happily offered these same ironclad assurances regarding God's establishment of earthly governments if he'd been living in Bavaria in the late 1930's AD, or in Phnom Penh in the 1970's AD?

...

Setting Paul's seemingly obligatory pronouncement that earthly governments should be obeyed by Christians aside for a moment, let's examine the words of one of Christ's actual disciples:

And when they had brought them, they set them before the council: and the high priest asked them,

Saying, Did not we straightly command you that ye should not teach in this name? and, behold, ye have filled Jerusalem with your doctrine, and intend to bring this man's blood upon us.

Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men.

Peter clearly states that obedience to God trumps obedience to man.

So the question is this: Which scripture takes precedence?

Is it possible for Christians to be patriots? Or would they agree that their religion automatically obliges us to affix their professions of patriotism with an asterisk?

 

[JayJayDee]

I was recently reminded that Christian scriptures offer contradictory instructions regarding obedience to earthly lawmaking.

Seems clear enough. Christians are instructed to obey their governments. In fact, Paul even goes so far as to assert that governments are instituted by God.

In allowing human rulership in this world, God is not saying that he condones what they do. He permits them to rule so that we can have a measure of order in this life. It is plain to see that the atrocities committed by some governments could not possibly have God's backing. He tolerates them, he doesn't necessarily approve of them.

So of course, when you're talking to the Romans during the height of The Roman Empire, doesn't it make sense to assure them that your church is unquestionably loyal to the state? And although Paul apparently wasn't ready to reassure the Romans that their emperors were deities (which was what Roman Emperors were wont to declare), he was perfectly happy to assure them that their government was in fact ordained by his God.

How does one render "Have your cake and eat it" into Latin?

When Paul told Christians to be obedient to their governments, he meant it in a relative sense.

The apostles were arrested and brought before the High Priest. He said to the apostles.....
“We positively ordered you not to keep teaching upon the basis of this name, and yet, look! You have filled Jerusalem with your teaching, and you are determined to bring the blood of this man upon us.” 29 In answer Peter and the [other] apostles said: “We must obey God as ruler rather than men."

This suggests relative subjection only.

Q. - Do you suppose that Paul would have happily offered these same ironclad assurances regarding God's establishment of earthly governments if he'd been living in Bavaria in the late 1930's AD, or in Phnom Penh in the 1970's AD?

The directive to "obey God rather than men" holds true no matter what...no matter where. There is no other option....no excuse for disobeying.

Setting Paul's seemingly obligatory pronouncement that earthly governments should be obeyed by Christians aside for a moment, let's examine the words of one of Christ's actual disciples:

Peter clearly states that obedience to God trumps obedience to man.

So the question is this: Which scripture takes precedence?

Both do. We are to obey all the government's laws except when they contravene the law of God. Simple really.

Is it possible for Christians to be patriots? Or would they agree that their religion automatically obliges us to affix their professions of patriotism with an asterisk?

There is no such thing as a Christian patriot.

We do not have our primary citizenship in any nation on planet Earth. We are citizens of God's kingdom which Jesus said was not earthly.
Christ's anointed ones are said to be ambassadors for Christ. As such they must remain politically neutral as Jesus himself was.

The Roman Empire was oppressing his people but never once did Jesus recommend overthrowing it or demonstrating violence towards it in any way. Rather they were told to obey the ruling authority and wait for the kingdom of God to right the wrongs of this world.
We are not to avenge ourselves but to leave vengeance to God. (Rom 12:17-21)

 

[ChristineES]

What's the trouble? You can obey the laws of your country without dishonoring G-D or putting man's law above G-D's law.

 

[Valjean]

What's the trouble? You can obey the laws of your country without dishonoring G-D or putting man's law above G-D's law.

But what if you live in a rogue, militaristic nation that devotes itself not to helping the poor, but to exploiting and warring on others?

 

[Estro Felino]

Is it possible for Christians to be patriots? Or would they agree that their religion automatically obliges us to affix their professions of patriotism with an asterisk?

I think that patriotism has little to do with your speech about earthly governments and the obedience to them.
Paul meant that the Christian faith is absolutely compatible with being citizen of a "secular" state which respects all religions and faith.
Let's not forget that the apostles never imposed Christianity by force.

as for patriotism, Christian are not patriotic nor nationalists. As a Catholic, nationalism is against my principles and against the principles of the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church belongs to all nations;
in fact in the American Catholic Churches the Mass is in English,
because all nations are equal in God's eyes

 

[Valjean]

Christians do not recognise national or ethnic differences.
"Neither Jew nor gentile, slave nor free, male nor female. All are one in Christ."

 

[Sultan Of Swing]

But what if you live in a rogue, militaristic nation that devotes itself not to helping the poor, but to exploiting and warring on others?

Well I doubt the role of government was to help the poor in Paul's time anyway.

Back in the good old days, helping the poor was the responsibility of ordinary citizens, charities, churches, we didn't lay it off to the government.

 

[Sultan Of Swing]

I don't see a problem with patriotism itself but as defined in the poll title it implies that it will come before God. Anything that comes before God is wrong, that sort of patriotism or nationalism is not compatible.

I don't see anything wrong with being proud of one's country, having loyalty to one's country, as long as it does not contradict God's laws or go against God or exceed the importance we give to God.

 

[ChristineES]

But what if you live in a rogue, militaristic nation that devotes itself not to helping the poor, but to exploiting and warring on others?

I'd have to make a decision at the time that happened. Go to jail or worship G-D.

 

[NulliuSINverba]

Let's not forget that the apostles never imposed Christianity by force.

Is this only because they were never in any position to do so?

 

[NulliuSINverba]

Christians do not recognise national or ethnic differences.
"Neither Jew nor gentile, slave nor free, male nor female. All are one in Christ."

So as far as the poll goes, I'll take that as a "YES?"

 

[NulliuSINverba]

But what if you live in a rogue, militaristic nation that devotes itself not to helping the poor, but to exploiting and warring on others?

A militaristic rogue nation? What a laughable concept!

 

[Valjean]

How so?
Is the American Empire not militaristic? Has it not been manipulating world politics for most of its existence?


"America is the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today."
--Martin Luther King Jr.

 

[NulliuSINverba]

It is plain to see that the atrocities committed by some governments could not possibly have God's backing. He tolerates them, he doesn't necessarily approve of them.

"... there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God." ~ Romans 13:1

Forgive me, but this certainly sounds as if earthly governments have God's ongoing tacit approval.

When Paul told Christians to be obedient to their governments, he meant it in a relative sense.

"...Give to everyone what you owe them: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor." ~ Romans 13:7

Please cite the chapter and verse where this "relative sense" is indicated. Thanks.

“We must obey God as ruler rather than men."

This suggests relative subjection only.

Yes it does. And it handily contradicts Paul's admonition(s).

We are to obey all the government's laws except when they contravene the law of God. Simple really.

That isn't what Paul said in Romans. Again, I'm obliged to ask: Which scripture takes precedence?

There is no such thing as a Christian patriot.

I suspect that you're correct. I also suspect that a great many avowed Christians would vehemently disagree with you.

We do not have our primary citizenship in any nation on planet Earth. We are citizens of God's kingdom which Jesus said was not earthly.

So it's a death cult, isn't it?

The Roman Empire was oppressing his people but never once did Jesus recommend overthrowing it or demonstrating violence towards it in any way.

Not in any way? That's not entirely true is it? The Bible clearly demonstrates that Jesus resorted to violence in the driving the moneylenders out of the Temple.

"Jesus entered the temple courts and drove out all who were buying and selling there. He overturned the tables of the money changers and the benches of those selling doves." ~ Matthew 21:12

That counts as violence, doesn't it?

Keep in mind that the high priest of the temple during the time Jesus was supposed to have been alive was a Roman appointee. Wouldn't the Roman authorities have viewed any act of violence against the temple as (at the least, indirectly) an act of violence against the Roman state? The Romans even maintained a fortress next to the temple where they allegedly stored the vestments of the high priest.

In any event, the Bible declares that the Romans had Jesus crucified. He must have done or said something to merit such a sentence.

...

"Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword." ~ Matthew 10:34

 

[JayJayDee]

"... there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God." ~ Romans 13:1

Forgive me, but this certainly sounds as if earthly governments have God's ongoing tacit approval.

Permitting these ones to rule doesn't mean that God approves of what they do. Since there is no sanction from him for the ruling authority to "bear the sword" except to punish wrongdoers, then the heinous weapons used in the mass murder of civilians (e.g. Hiroshima and Nagasaki atomic bombs...Nazi death camps...the killing fields etc.) could not have even his tacit approval.

In Israel, even an accidental killing had a penalty imposed for the perpetrator. Life is not cheap to its Creator.

No innocent life taken can possibly have God's approval. Innocent lives lost in war are viewed as merely "collateral damage" by governments...there is no such thing sanctioned by God in the Bible for Christians.

"...Give to everyone what you owe them: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor."

~ Romans 13:7

Please cite the chapter and verse where this "relative sense" is indicated. Thanks.

Paying taxes and respecting those in authority is a far cry from having sanction to kill innocents.
What war do you know of where innocent lives are not taken?

If we are commanded to "love our enemies" by Jesus, then when do you tell your enemy you love him? Before or after you shoot him?

That isn't what Paul said in Romans. Again, I'm obliged to ask: Which scripture takes precedence?

God's laws take precedence. No government has the right to force you to break God's laws.

I suspect that you're correct. I also suspect that a great many avowed Christians would vehemently disagree with you.

Yes, I know......

So it's a death cult, isn't it?

No, it is a life oriented belief.
Even while he was on earth, Jesus said his kingdom was no part of this world...why do you think Jesus told his disciples to be no part of it either? He identified the devil as the ruler and god of this world. (1 John 5:19; 2 Cor 4:3, 4)

Not in any way? That's not entirely true is it? The Bible clearly demonstrates that Jesus resorted to violence in the driving the moneylenders out of the Temple.

He was turning dodgy Jewish traders out of the temple, for extorting money for sacrificial animals right inside his Father's house of worship. This had nothing to do with Rome.

"Jesus entered the temple courts and drove out all who were buying and selling there. He overturned the tables of the money changers and the benches of those selling doves."

~ Matthew 21:12

That counts as violence, doesn't it?

Are you putting Jesus' eviction of animals and extortioners from the temple on a par with dropping bombs on Hiroshima?
He made whip of ropes to drive them out. He didn't flog anyone.
He overturned their tables scattering their ill-gotten gains all over the floor. That is hardly violence.

Keep in mind that the high priest of the temple during the time Jesus was supposed to have been alive was a Roman appointee. Wouldn't the Roman authorities have viewed any act of violence against the temple as (at the least, indirectly) an act of violence against the Roman state? The Romans even maintained a fortress next to the temple where they allegedly stored the vestments of the high priest.

This was the Jews not the Christians. Jesus did not have a good word to say about the Pharisees. He told his followers not to be part of the world...period.

In any event, the Bible declares that the Romans had Jesus crucified. He must have done or said something to merit such a sentence.

Pilate washed his hands of Jesus blood. He found no grounds on which to convict him.
It was only when the Jews threatened his political position that he caved. He even had Jesus flogged to appease them.

"Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword." ~ Matthew 10:34

Finish the quote....
This was between family members. Christian truth would divide families.

 

[Aupmanyav]

We have seen it in India. Christian majority Nagaland wanted independence a-la-East Timor, although there was no special problem. We now have come to an understanding with them.

 

[NulliuSINverba]

Permitting these ones to rule doesn't mean that God approves of what they do. Since there is no sanction from him for the ruling authority to "bear the sword" except to punish wrongdoers, then the heinous weapons used in the mass murder of civilians (e.g. Hiroshima and Nagasaki atomic bombs...Nazi death camps...the killing fields etc.) could not have even his tacit approval.

The Nazis clearly believed that they had God on on their side. There's also plenty of evidence that Japanese Buddhists were willing to rationalize their country's WWII-era aggression though the lens of their religion. It's almost farcical to read.

In Israel, even an accidental killing had a penalty imposed for the perpetrator.

"Anyone who strikes a person with a fatal blow is to be put to death. However, if it is not done intentionally, but God lets it happen, they are to flee to a place I will designate." ~ Exodus 21:12-13

That's right. God lets some killings happen. It's in the Bible.

Life is not cheap to its Creator.

"If the bull gores a male or female slave, the owner must pay thirty shekels of silver to the master of the slave, and the bull is to be stoned to death." ~ Exodus 21:32

According to one source, thirty shekels is about 12 ounces of silver. At today's prices ($17.77 an ounce) that slave's life was worth around $533.00. That isn't even a month's rent in many places.

So in fact, human life is fairly cheap to God. To make matters worse, it appears that his valuation of human life is determined by market forces.

How disgusting.

...

"And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished. Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money." ~ Exodus 21:20-21

If a human being beats another human being to death and the victim hangs around for "a day or two" then there was no punishment. Read that again until it sinks in.

These "Life-is-not-cheap-to-God" bromides are nauseating in light of the scriptural evidence to the contrary.

No innocent life taken can possibly have God's approval.

"The people of Israel are struck down. Their roots are dried up, and they will bear no more fruit. And if they give birth, I will slaughter their beloved children." ~ Hosea 9:16

Innocent lives lost in war are viewed as merely "collateral damage" by governments...there is no such thing sanctioned by God in the Bible for Christians.

"At midnight the Lord struck down all the firstborn in Egypt, from the firstborn of Pharaoh, who sat on the throne, to the firstborn of the prisoner, who was in the dungeon, and the firstborn of all the livestock as well. Pharaoh and all his officials and all the Egyptians got up during the night, and there was loud wailing in Egypt, for there was not a house without someone dead." ~ Exodus 12:29-30

I guess that in these cases, any alleged innocence is trumped by Divine Command?

Paying taxes and respecting those in authority is a far cry from having sanction to kill innocents.

Please. Enough! Spare me already. God had no problem ordering whole cities leveled and every man, woman, and little child slaughtered:

"And we took all his cities at that time, and utterly destroyed the men, and the women, and the little ones, of every city, we left none to remain..." ~ Deuteronomy 2:34

What war do you know of where innocent lives are not taken?

Apparently, any war ordered by God in the Bible. Or would you agree that even in those cases, innocent lives were taken at God's Command?

If we are commanded to "love our enemies" by Jesus, then when do you tell your enemy you love him? Before or after you shoot him?

It wouldn't shock me to learn that this very question has caused at least one schism in Christendom.

God's laws take precedence. No government has the right to force you to break God's laws.

Are you advocating a return to human trafficking and slavery?

No, it is a life oriented belief.

As you've conceded, Christians look to an alleged afterlife for ultimate fulfillment. That sounds quite like a death cult to me.

In fact, don't Christians believe that their salvation was attained through death? Yes ... resurrection is the important conceit in that equation, but isn't it unavoidable that death must precede any alleged resurrections?

He was turning dodgy Jewish traders out of the temple, for extorting money for sacrificial animals right inside his Father's house of worship. This had nothing to do with Rome.

The High Priest was a Roman appointee. His vestments were stored in the Roman fortress abutting the temple. It all had something to do with Rome. Especially given that they were the ones who allegedly crucified him.

Are you putting Jesus' eviction of animals and extortioners from the temple on a par with dropping bombs on Hiroshima?

Of course not. While deplorable, Hiroshima was at least ostensibly state-on-state violence. What Jesus did in the temple was much more akin to terrorism.

He made whip of ropes to drive them out. He didn't flog anyone.

Sure. And he probably just brandished it lovingly.

He overturned their tables scattering their ill-gotten gains all over the floor. That is hardly violence.

Seriously? Try overturning the tables and scattering stuff all over the floor at the next public gathering or fundraising event you're invited to. See how people describe it. I'll bet the word "violent" appears on the police report at least once.

This was the Jews not the Christians.

Oh please! Is it the same God or not?

Jesus did not have a good word to say about the Pharisees. He told his followers not to be part of the world...period.

"He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one." ~ Luke 22:36

Why did he specifically instruct his followers to buy a sword? That doesn't sound like not being a part of the world period. And if he was instructing them to pay their taxes, how does that dovetail with "not being part of the world period?"

Pilate washed his hands of Jesus blood. He found no grounds on which to convict him.
It was only when the Jews threatened his political position that he caved. He even had Jesus flogged to appease them.

So what? That Pilate was a bureaucrat is not in question. And as far as any floggings go, we know that Pilate was recalled by Rome for excessive cruelty.

Christian truth would divide families.

And whole denominations. Schism after schism after schism.

"Christian truth?" That's amusing.

 

[JayJayDee]

@ nulliusinverba

If you have tried the Almighty in your own court of limited human understanding then so be it. There is no point in debating or defending anything with a brick wall.

You are obviously right and God is obviously wrong...so what is left to say?
Have a nice life.

 

[NulliuSINverba]

@ nulliusinverba

If you have tried the Almighty in your own court of limited human understanding then so be it.

Before a court can try anything, they need to establish identity. You didn't answer my question: Is the God of the Old Testament the same God represented in the New Testament or not?

There is no point in debating or defending anything with a brick wall.

You've been offered the window of a contradictory opinion and you've opted to focus on the brick wall the window is set in?
Que sera sera.

You are obviously right and God is obviously wrong...so what is left to say?
Have a nice life.

Go thou and do likewise.

 

[LuisDantas]

Christianity is far more ancient that modern expectations of "patriotism". It can't be reasonably expect to conform to them, despite considerably influence on their creation.

However, it seems clear to me that patriotism is an inherently flawed concept and can't be put to much constructive use in the first place.