Smiths, Joneses, and Americans

My inaugural foray on this site–calling on Evangelicals to remember that nations are a kind of thing that can keep people out–inspired comments querying whether national sovereignty is actually a Christian idea. Some commenters asked this question honestly, others rhetorically. To this latter group, a sovereignty which flexes its power to deport outsiders is deeply inconsistent with Christian charity and biblical morality.

Picture of Jesus with American flag

Picture of Jesus with American flag (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Since then, this forum has housed some excellent reflections on patriotism and national identity. Mr. McCracken provided a stirring apology for moderate patriotism, then Mr. Simpson busted out a little patristic action in reminding us that a Christian’s most fundamental political reflection is Kurios Iesous.

To these I would add a single thought: Belonging to a country, while not an ultimate identity, is one piece of information about a man. That is why Richard John Neuhaus once said that he expected to meet God as an American.

Admittedly, that is a statement that can easily be misunderstood. It is not intended as a boast or as a claim on God’s favorable judgment. It is a simple statement of fact. Among all the things I am or have been or hope to be, I am undeniably an American. It is not the most important thing, but it is an inescapable thing. Nor, even were I so inclined, should I try to escape it. It is a pervasive and indelible part of what is called one’s “identity.”

(emphasis mine)

And because there really is such a thing as an American, there also exists a subset of mankind who are “Not American.” Both categories are populated with fearful and wonderfully made divine image bearers, but the bonds of national identity attach only to the former.

That is okay because patriotism is like familial affection. Just like it would be quite odd for a man to tell you that his children are less talented than average, it would be strange for him to fail to praise the special charms of his own country.

Let us imagine the Smiths and the Joneses–two Christian households living right next door to one another. They go to the same church and their kids dig in the same sandbox. Hospitality abounds. Most nights one of the Jones children is at the Smith’s dinner table and vice versa. All in all, very Norman Rockwell (dare we say Thomas Kinkade?).

But all of this closeness will not eradicate the two families’ separate identities. Mr. Smith may look out for one of the little Joneses, but he will stay up all night worrying about the little Smiths. That natural affection–though redeemed–does not extend to the neighbor to the same extent.

And all of this charity does not give little Johnny Smith the right to waltz into the Jones’ house uninvited. It is in their separateness that one family can extend hospitality to the other. Elsewise, we’d call it adoption. Or some kind of hippy commune thing.

Dr. Benjamin Rush painted by Charles Willson P...

Dr. Benjamin Rush painted by Charles Willson Peale in 1783 and 1786. Winterthur Museum. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

The parallel between family-love and country-love is the gist of American Founder Benjamin Rush’s theoretical argument for patriotic sentiment:

Patriotism is as much a virtue as justice, and is as necessary for the support of societies as natural affection is for the support of families. The Amor Patriae is both a moral and a religious duty. It comprehends not only the love of our neighbors but of millions of our fellow creatures, not only of the present but of future generations.

Dr. Rush continued by rattling off a litany of examples of this trait from both the Old and New Testaments.

This virtue we find constitutes a part of the first characters in history. The holy men of old, in proportion as they possessed a religious were endowed with a public spirit. What did not Moses forsake and suffer for his countrymen! What shining examples of Patriotism do we behold in Joshua, Samuel, Maccabeus, and all the illustrious princes, captains, and prophets amongst the Jews! St. Paul almost wishes himself accursed for his countrymen and kinsmen after the flesh. Even our Savior himself gives a sanction to this virtue. He confined his miracles and gospel at first to his own country.

Even if one quibbles with whether Matt. 15:21-28 or Rom. 9:3 teach the ethical virtue of patriotism, Dr. Rush’s parallel to natural affection is the strongest point. Mr. Smith would be worse than an infidel (1 Tim 5:8) were he to not acquit his duties to his own household. An American should do the same to his fellowcountrymen.

 

email
  • http://christianresurgence.blogspot.com Dave Hunter

    The issue is much deeper than anyone would like to admit. And as always there will be differing opinions regardless of whether it’s from a Christian perspective or not. I wouldn’t call patriotism a mild form of xenophobia but it certainly bears the same spirit especially when it comes to demanding for the forceful deportation of ‘aliens’.

    Is it not an economic question and not something about what is morally wrong or right? It’s a survival instinct in answer to the what if scenario which paints a somber picture of the future. Things certainly look bad–people losing jobs everyday. Bad news each and every day but the raw fact that despite everything “life goes on” is not addressed by the media.

    It’s the media that’s responsible for all this bad stuff and now they exacerbate it? Why should they give coverage to controversial issues that are bound to make those who are targeted to panic?

    Fine, it’s OK to be patriotic and it’s recommended that everyone should be patriotic but then doesn’t everything have a boundary? What happened to the golden rule…Do unto others what you’d have them do unto you?

    I think that should be our baseline when it comes to relating with others. Place yourself in their shoes walk in them a mile and see how you like it.

  • Adam

    Ok, so the family analogy only gets you as far as having special duties towards the family. How do we jump from there to a conservative policy on immigration? Wouldn’t the liberal and centrist alternatives to which you take exception also grant that we have special duties to citizens that we do not have to immigrants? No one is saying that there should be no difference to how we treat citizens and non-citizens, right? To extend the analogy, the question is what do you do when the kids in the other family come over, act like good kids, and don’t want to go home because maybe they don’t get enough to eat at home. That’s a different and more difficult sort of question.

  • Jeffry Butter

    I would really like to see some specifics on the comment: “.. a sovereignty which flexes its power to deport outsiders is deeply inconsistent with Christian charity and biblical morality.”

    • Keith Miller

      What do you mean “specifics”? Several of the comments my post received emphasized that deporting illegal immigrants for relocating without authorization cannot be squared with biblical teaching. Further, they rejected my idea of national sovereignty as a silly, modern, and Western concept.

      It looks like some of those comments may got eaten in the (awesome) Mere-O redesign. Maybe they could reengage in this thread.

      • Jeffry Butter

        Ok. It’s a complicated discussion. I am a citizen, and have rights and responsibilities and privileges. Some rights are inalienable. Other rights come through being responsible. I think that the granting of rights that are not inalienable should be a set of deliberate acts, involving as many citizens as possible. I think what happens a lot right now is that rights are being granted with no deliberation (but by bureaucratic declaration), no citizen involvement (bureaucratic again) and no accountability for those receiving them.