In the introduction to his new book, In Defense of Christian Patriotism, Daniel Darling writes, “In Scripture, God commands a number of loves. We are to love God, love our family, love our neighbors. But what about love of country? It can be easy for a modern Christian to dismiss this love as superfluous to Christian duty. However, a fundamental assumption of the Christian life is that we are to be grateful to God for the things that he gives us. The specifics of our birthplace fall under that category: our family, our home, our community… We’re to love our home as the place where God has planted us, not because it’s the best of all possible homes but because it’s a space we’ve been given to steward.”
This sounds simple. And yet, of course, it is not. Darling wrote this book in response to real questions and concerns from many American Christians.
Daniel Darling is the author of several books, including Agents of Grace, The Dignity Revolution, and The Characters of Christmas. He currently serves as the director of the Land Center for Cultural Engagement at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary and is a fellow at the Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention. He is also a columnist for World and a contributor to USA Today.
***
Nadya Williams: There has been a lot of concern over Christian Nationalism—so much that the PCA has a committee studying the issue right now. On the other extreme, though, there is plain hatred of America. I love that your book charts a different course. Can you explain your overall message in brief?
Daniel Darling: The Christian nationalism conversation is so fraught. On the one hand, this term has become so elastic as to include any Christian conservative who cherishes America's founding ideals and works to "form a more perfect union." So the guy weeping when Chris Stapleton sings the national anthem is a nationalist. The politician who quotes a few Bible verses is a nationalist. I wanted to correct this narrative. There have been so many books, essays, and conferences conflating these two and handwringing about conservative Christians who love their country and get involved in politics in some way.
At the same time, you do have a small, but influential, cohort of mostly academics who self-describe as either Christian nationalists or perhaps Catholic integralists who seem dissatisfied with the Constitutional order and long for a more theocratic arrangement. Most surveys indicate that this is a small, yet influential cohort, and it is shaping certain conversations within the church. As a Baptist and a believer in our system of government, I obviously oppose that.
And yet secularism is not the answer, either. Secularism seeks to drive Christianity out of the public square in any meaningful sense and is allergic to any contact between the government and religion. But even our founders understood that our rights come from God. And they understood that this experiment in ordered liberty will only work with a virtuous people, shaped by religion, which includes a thick Christianity. Thus one of the messages of my book is that a state church or secularism are not the only two choices.
Nadya Williams: I would love to hear the backstory to this book. When did you decide that this book was needed—and that you were the one who needed to write it?
Daniel Darling: I've really been thinking about these themes most of my life. In recent years, there has been so much discussion about a Christian's responsibility to the nation. We are approaching America 250, and there is an open question among many Christians about how best to love the country. Some wonder if it's even appropriate to express patriotism. I believe it's not only ok; it's necessary. I don't see how one can "seek the welfare" of a city or country about which we are apathetic or which we despise.
Many have been taught and have heard that a Christian has to forsake loving one's country to love God, as if it's always a binary choice. I want to help folks understand that it's about ordering our loves. I can love God the most and still have lesser allegiances, like patriotism. I work through Scriptures like 1 Peter 2 and dialogue with C.S. Lewis, GK Chesterton, and Augustine and others who had a lot to say about this.
A healthy, rightly ordered patriotism is, to quote Richard John Neuhaus, a "species of discipleship." There is a temptation, obviously, to get our allegiances misaligned, but that doesn't preclude us from having them.
What's more, I really wanted to help Christians think strategically about how to love the country. In the back half of the book, I focus on four areas: family, church, education, and community.
Nadya Williams: You make a bold statement early on in the book: Christians should be more involved in politics, not less. Can you explain what you mean by this?
Daniel Darling: I think there is a misconception that evangelical Christians are rabid, frothing at the mouth partisans every Sunday when they walk in the door. The truth is that the subset of believers who actively engage in politics is pretty small. Studies show a significant section of evangelicals don't vote. I believe every Christian has a unique calling, so I'm not saying everyone has to run for office or make appearances on cable news or write op-eds or post on social media. However, I do believe that at some level, in order to properly love our neighbors as ourselves and to seek the welfare of our cities, we should roll up our sleeves and try to put into place policies that best affect our neighbors' flourishing.
I argue that Christians who are active, churchgoing believers, engaged in spiritual disciplines are exactly the kind of people we need more of in politics. Christians who go to church every week, understanding that the things of this world will one day give way to another world, are exactly the best kind of people we want in the system. People for whom politics isn't ultimate are the best kind of people in politics. When faithful, churchgoing folks withdraw, what fills the vacuum (on all sides) is worse.
Nadya Williams: Some portions of your book reminded me of arguments that many early Christians, like Tertullian, were making in the Roman Empire: Christians are good for the state. Obviously, I agree. But the question is: why do some people not agree with this? Is this an ideological difference? Is it ignorance? Other reasons?
Daniel Darling: This is a really good question. I think it's complicated. First, I think much of the idea that religion and specifically Christianity is dangerous occurs within the decades-long trend in the West toward secularism and from some of the new atheism that grew in influence after 9/11. It is Charles Taylor's thesis of a secular age where belief in the transcendent is abnormal. Secondly, I think progressivism, which in its super early phases actually had some roots in Christianity, gradually abandoned its spiritual core and embraced more cultural Marxism, where everything old, ancient, and good is considered bad. Lastly, I think some of this is plain old spiritual warfare, something Jesus warned us would happen.
Incidentally, I think these trends are reversing. We are seeing folks reject secularism and expressive individualism and try to "find their way toward God" to quote Paul Acts.17. I document this in the book, but even folks like Richard Dawkins and others are acknowledging the social benefits of a thick Christian presence in the nation. They are realizing that the values they say they cherish had roots somewhere beyond mere common sense.
What's more, humans were created to worship, so even as we told ourselves that belief in the transcendent is weird, all of our great stories, movies, and songs hint at our need for something or someone outside of ourselves to rescue us. I really believe there is something happening.
So Christians are poised to joyfully press the story of Christianity into the questions of the age. We should do this unapologetically.
Nadya Williams: You are a pastor, an academic, a public intellectual and writer. What questions and topics fascinate you most in your thinking, reading, and writing?
Daniel Darling: I love this question. I've always had three loves. I absolutely love the local church and Christian ministry. I've been attending church my entire life, and every week I still cannot wait until Sunday. So a lot of my reading, writing, and thinking has been about the church and Christian theology. Most of my writing is helping Christians, in some form or fashion, think through what it looks like to be faithful in this age. Even though I'm not currently in a pastoral role, I think of myself as a pastor.
Secondly, I've always loved history, politics, and culture. My parents had three newspapers delivered to the house every day, and I read them cover to cover. I subscribed to publications like The National Review and others in high school. I enjoy politics, policy, and history, particularly American history. So my thinking and writing are often in this vein.
Lastly, I've always loved words. My whole career has involved crafting words, whether in print, in public speaking, in preaching, and in leadership positions. There are a lot of things I can't do, such as making furniture, fixing a transmission, or designing a bridge. But I can put words together.
