American foreign policy — both good and bad — has always been deeply influenced by Christian theology.

Note: This is part of FPIF’s new Religion in Foreign Policy Focus. for more, visit www.fpif.org.

American foreign policy is built on a deep foundation of Christian theology. Some of the people who make our foreign policy may understand that foundation. Most probably aren’t even aware of it. But foundations are hidden underground. You can stand above them, and even take a strong stand upon them, without knowing they are there. When it comes to foreign policy, we are all influenced by theological foundations that we rarely see.

For example, few Americans have read the work of Reinhold Niebuhr, the most influential American theologian of the 20th century. Many have never even heard the name. Yet Niebuhr’s thought affects us all. In the 1930s, he launched an attack on the liberal Christianity of the Social Gospel, a movement that powerfully influenced U.S. foreign policy in the first third of the 20th century. The liberals were starry-eyed fools, Niebuhr charged, because they trusted people to be reasonable enough to resolve international conflicts peacefully. They forgot the harsh reality of original sin.

Niebuhr wrapped that traditional notion of sin in a new intellectual package and sold it successfully, not only to theologians but to the foreign policy elite. Since the 1940s, foreign policy has largely been reduced to an endless round of debates about how to apply Niebuhr’s “realism.” Policymakers who still tried to follow the Social Gospel path have been marginalized and stigmatized with the harshest epithet a Niebuhrian can hurl: “unrealistic.”

It’s a Jungle Out There

Many policymakers, like much of the public at large, have come to find a strange comfort in the world as Niebuhr described it. They see a jungle where evildoers, who are all around, must be hunted down and destroyed. Though frightening, this world can easily become the stage for simplistic dramas of good against evil. And the moral certainty of being on the side of good — the side of God — can provide a sense of security that more than makes up for the constant terror. That was not what Niebuhr had in mind. But as he found out so painfully, once you let ideas loose in the world, you can’t control what others do with them.

Niebuhr would have been pained to see what the neoconservatives have done with his ideas. Their theory starts out from his own premise: All people are born naturally selfish and impulsive. The godfather of neoconservatism, Irving Kristol, was (like most of the early neocons) an intellectual — a teacher, writer, and editor — and (like many of the early neocons) a Jew. But he turned to Christian theology to describe his Niebuhrian view of human nature: “Original sin was one way of saying this, and I had no problem with that doctrine.”¹ Selfish impulses, when they get out of control, can tear society apart, he warned. To preserve social order we need a fixed moral order. We therefore need a clear sense of the absolute difference between good and bad, strict rules that tell us what is good, and powerful institutions that can get people to obey those rules.

According to this worldview, organized religion has been the most effective institution to promote moral absolutes and self-control. Religion now needs to be strengthened to stave off a rising tide of moral relativism that, along with secular humanism, is breaking down the bulwarks of social order and threatening to release a flood of selfish impulse to drown us all in chaos. A favorite neoconservative columnist, Charles Krauthammer, complains that American mass culture, dominated by skepticism and pleasure, is an “engine of social breakdown.” The best antidote would be a “self-abnegating religious revival.” Since that is not likely to happen, Krauthammer admits, the best place to recover moral discipline and will power is in foreign affairs: America must find the will to exercise its strength and become “confident enough to define international morality in its own, American terms.”²

Original Sin Goes Global

When neoconservatives apply their views to international relations, they deviate from Niebuhr’s teaching. All people may be sinners, they imply, but not all nations. They assume an (often vaguely defined) hierarchy of nations. At the bottom are the enemies of America, consistently described as chaotic, irrational monsters who are incapable of self-control and bent on provoking instability and evil for its own sake. Above them are neutral nations and then U.S. allies near the top of the pyramid. At the top is the United States, in a class by itself because its national motives are good and pure, somehow untainted by original sin.

Neoconservatives insist on this hierarchy, with its dramatic contrast between the good United States and its evil enemies, because it gives them the sense of moral clarity and certainty that they rely on to hold back the relativism they fear. They bolster their sense of certainty by reducing international affairs to simplistic myths: black-and-white tales of absolute good versus absolute evil. (Here I use the word “myth” in its religious sense of a narrative story that expresses a community’s worldview and basic values.) George W. Bush tapped into this mythic world when he said that the war on terrorism is “a monumental struggle between good and evil. But good will prevail.” The outcome is certain, according to Bush, because “we all know that this is one nation, under God.” But Americans must do their world-ordering job pretty much alone, since other nations and international institutions are too selfish to be trusted. The United States must rely primarily on military might, since the only language that the sinful evildoers understand is force.

The neoconservatives did not invent this myth. It goes back to the Puritan belief in “the new Israel” and Americans as God’s chosen people, with the special privilege and responsibility of bringing order to a sinful, chaotic world. Most Americans are still likely to see their nation as the global hero fulfilling that sacred task. Only the United States, they believe in a great leap of faith, is moved by an unselfish desire to serve the good of all humanity by spreading ordered liberty.

Throughout the Cold War era, across the political spectrum, there was no doubting the name of the threatening evil: Communism. After a decade of drift and uncertainty in the 1990s, the September 11 attacks, despite their horror, allowed the nation to breathe easier, at least in terms of the theology of foreign policy. Once again, it seemed that everyone agreed on the name of the monstrous sinners, the source of instability. Rudolph Giuliani could have been speaking for most Americans when he explained that the cultural payoff of the war on terrorism was moral stability: “The era of moral relativism…must end. Moral relativism does not have a place in this discussion.” That crusading tone of certainty gave Bush and the neoconservatives a very free hand in the early post-September 11 days, when they launched the invasion of Afghanistan. The administration then invaded Iraq with the approval of 75% of the U.S. public and nearly all the foreign policy elite.

Iraq War

The myth of U.S. moral and global supremacy - Americans as the world’s chosen people - went largely unchallenged until the U.S. venture in Iraq went sour. The myth says that the good guys are supposed to win every time, because they are good. When the myth does not get played out in reality, people start to complain. If you look at the current debate about Iraq from the standpoint of myth and theology, the complainers fall into three broad groups.

First there is the mainstream of the foreign policy elite, made up of Democrats and more moderate Republicans. They complain that the Bush administration is pursuing the right goals but using the wrong tactics. That’s because the elite still hold on to some shreds of the old Social Gospel view. They give most of the world a bit more credit for rationality; they fear the impulses of original sin a bit less. So they see military strength as one of several ways to secure America’s global hegemony. They are more willing to take a multilateral approach and use the carrot as well as the stick - to pull diplomatic and economic levers before calling out the troops.

But these differences, though they can be very important, are largely ones of degree and tactics. Across the board, members of the foreign policy establishment, even the liberal Democrats, still give a very respectful (sometimes slavish) hearing to the great theologian Niebuhr. But they apply his “realistic” view of original sin only to other nations. The liberals among the elite, too, want their sense of moral clarity and certainty reassured by seeing it played out in a global drama of good against evil. So they make a huge exception for the supposedly pure and innocent motives of their own nation, the chosen people. They believe that the U.S. has a higher moral standing, which gives us the right and duty to rule. That’s how they can justify the most ruthless policies against anyone who stands in their way.

The bipartisan elite may not value the display of American strength as an end in itself, the way neoconservatives do. They are willing to risk a short-term appearance of weakness in one place in order to bolster long-term U.S. strength everywhere else. But long-term strength (including a long-term military presence in Iraq) is still crucial, because they feel a sacred calling to enforce “stability” - their favorite code word for a single global order that protects U.S. interests - everywhere and forever.

The second group of war critics is on the right. A growing number of traditional conservatives criticize the administration and the bipartisan establishment for betraying genuine Niebuhrian “realism.” These hard-core “realists” want the United States to recognize that it too is a sinful nation, limited in its goodness as well as its resources, all too likely to overreach and eventually destroy itself if it doesn’t scale back its hubristic dream of enduring empire.

Thus the right-wing “realists” become strange bedfellows with the third group of war critics, the left-wingers, who, starting from very different principles, arrive at the same anti-imperialist conclusions. Though most of them don’t know it, what makes leftists leftist is that they still champion many of the basic values of the Social Gospel movement. They do not accept the doctrine of original sin; they don’t think people are inherently doomed to be selfish and unreasonable. They assume that the vast majority of people, if treated decently and given decent living conditions, will respond by being decent people. For the left, order and stability are not as important as human growth, creativity, and transformation. The key to a better world is not strength and dominance, but sharing and cooperation. And leftists often assume - or at least hope - that the long-term trend of history is leading to that better world, a view that is rooted in the biblical hope for redemption.

In Middle America

Leftists who are consistent extend their Social Gospel view to its logical conclusion: There are no monsters - no inherently bad people — only bad conditions. So the good guys versus bad guys myth always distorts reality. But a surprising number of leftists sacrifice logical consistency for the emotional pleasure of the traditional myth. For them, of course, the monsters are the Bush administration, the neoconservatives, sometimes the mainstream Democrats too, and always, above all, the corporate elite whose hand they see behind every gesture of U.S. imperialism.

This left-wing version of the myth does not play very well in middle America, or even on the coasts apart from a few ultra-liberal enclaves. The hardcore “realist” view may get slightly higher ratings, but not much. Most Americans still demand a heavy dose of moral idealism in their foreign policy. They want to continue believing in the myth of American innocence. They won’t give in to a full-blown Niebuhrian pessimism about human nature - at least not when it comes to American humans. And they don’t want to believe that the economic and political leaders of their nation are utterly cynical “realists,” devoid of ideals, caring only about money and power.

So the mass of the citizenry, sick and tired of losing in Iraq, swing in line behind the only critical voice they can support: the foreign policy elite. The public criticizes the administration for its inept effort in Iraq. But most citizens don’t raise any questions about the long-term goals or the theological premises underlying them.

Only when something looks broken do people think about fixing it. The last time the U.S. foreign policy system broke down was when the United States suffered defeat in Vietnam. However, after a short period of radical questioning, a powerful reaction set in, fueled by the deep and widespread need for idealism and moral certainty. The neoconservatives got control of the public conversation in the late 1970s because they recognized that need and offered a Cold War myth that satisfied it.

The same need for moral clarity arose after September 11, but it’s been bitterly betrayed by the failure in Iraq. How can we avoid a similar neoconservative reaction as we question the underpinnings of U.S. foreign policy in the years to come? And if the Iraq debacle boots the neoconservatives out of power for good, how can we use this window of opportunity to challenge the most powerful alternative view, the bipartisan establishment consensus? From the outset it won’t help to scorn the average citizen’s idealistic view of America. That’s like wishing away the Rocky Mountains. Claiming that this worldview is unrealistic would be caving in to a simplistic Niebuhrian “realism.” After all, we on the left believe in our own idealism. We are happy to hear right-wing “realists” argue that Americans are no more idealistic than anyone else. But we forget that Americans are no less idealistic either. That includes even the most powerful leaders of the nation. Rather than demonizing them and dismissing their claim to good intentions outright, we would do better to look for common values that we can all agree on and then find progressive programs that can put those values into practice.

Different Moral Certainties

Just about all Americans, from Bush and Cheney and the CEOs of Exxon and Lockheed-Martin on down, sincerely want the nation to be secure. As long as our notions of security are built on the myth of well-meaning Americans versus ever-threatening evildoers who embody original sin, we can never dispense with the evildoers. They are as necessary in U.S. foreign policy as sin is in Niebuhr’s theology. They always have to be out there threatening us, in our imaginations at least, in order for our pursuit of national security to make any sense at all.

The bipartisan consensus on U.S. foreign policy calls for us to be powerful enough to dominate them. But every step we take to dominate only antagonizes more people and makes some of them really want to harm us. As long as we keep on this self-defeating road, we are not a national security state. We are a national insecurity state. So, we need to redefine national security in a way that meets people’s need for a second value that so many of us share: moral certainty. This involves a faith in some rock-bottom kind of goodness in the world, which many Americans believe has a special home here in the United States.

There is a special kind of goodness, rooted in a special kind of theology, that does have an old and honored home here — the goodness of nonviolence. There have always been Christians who were certain that the only moral way to treat others, even enemies, is with love, not violence. They knew it because Jesus said it, right there in the Bible. In 19th-century America, the abolitionists and Thoreau turned the theology of nonviolence into a homegrown strategy for political change.

Martin Luther King, Jr. took this strategy a crucial step further. He preached that it’s the government’s role to help bring all people together in what he called “the beloved community” (something very much like what the Social Gospel called the Kingdom of God). Every government policy should promote “the mutually cooperative and voluntary venture of man to assume a semblance of responsibility for his brother [and sister]” — the responsibility to help every person fulfill their God-given potential.

In King’s words, no matter how bad a person’s behavior, “the image of God is never totally gone.” So, government must serve everyone, everywhere. No one can be written off as a monstrous evildoer, sinful beyond redemption. That was a moral certainty for King, an essential foundation of his religious faith. King knew all about moral clarity and certainty. He was willing to die for the truths he believed in so firmly. But he was not willing to kill.

A Different Narrative

With King as our guide, we could have a distinctly American foreign policy based on the conviction of absolute moral certainty we find in the Social Gospel and nonviolence traditions.. Our goal would always be to move the world one step closer to becoming a universal beloved community. We would no longer act out the myth of good versus evil. We would not demonize a bin Laden or Saddam — or a Bush or Cheney. We would recognize that when people do bad things, their actions grow out of a global network of forces that we ourselves have helped to create. King said it most eloquently: “We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny.”

We can never stand outside the network of mutuality, as if we were the Lone Ranger arriving on the scene to destroy an evil we played no part in creating. Just as Bush is tied to Osama, so each of us is tied to all those who do things that outrage us. We cannot simply destroy them and think that the outrages have been erased. To right the wrongs of the world, we must start by recognizing our own responsibility for helping to spawn those wrongs. Indeed, fixing our own part in the wrongs we see all over the world may be all that we can do.

But in the case of the United States in 2007, that alone would be more than a full time job for our foreign policy. We would have to, among other things:

• end the occupation that creates a breeding ground for violent jihadis in Iraq and Afghanistan;
• reverse the policy of supporting authoritarian regimes in the Middle East;
• stop participating in the mad rush for power and resources in Africa, which breeds disasters like Rwanda and Darfur;
• withdraw support for the corporations and financiers who would strangle the emerging popular democracies in Latin America;
• and treat everyone as our brothers and sisters, even the leaders of North Korea and Cuba and Iran.

In short, we would have to create a new notion of “national interest” based on the moral certainty that we are all threads in a network of mutuality that is the foundation of our national as well as individual life. Since our foundation is infinite and eternal, no one can threaten to destroy it, or us. Embracing that principle as the basis of foreign policy could set us on the road to a radically new way of thinking about genuine national security.

If that’s not something all Americans can agree on, at least it’s a program that gets the debate down to our most basic assumptions. This is a democracy. If the people want a religion-laden foreign policy based on the doctrine of original sin and the myth of good against evil, it’s what we should have. But at least we should all talk about it together, openly and honestly.

Notes

1. Irving Kristol, Neoconservatism: The Autobiography of an Idea (New York: Free Press, 1995), p. 5.
2. Charles Krauthammer, “When to Intervene,” The New Republic, May 6, 1985, p. 10.

Ira Chernus is Professor of Religious Studies at the University of Colorado at Boulder and author of Monsters To Destroy: The Neoconservative War on Terror and Sin. Email: chernus@colorado.edu

source

LEFT BEHIND:

The Skewed Representation of Religion in Major News Media

It would surprise few people, conservative or progressive, to learn that coverage of the intersection of religion and politics tends to oversimplify both. If this oversimplification occurred to the benefit or detriment of neither side of the political divide, then the weaknesses in coverage of religion would be of only academic interest. But as this study documents, coverage of religion not only overrepresents some voices and underrepresents others, it does so in a way that is consistently advantageous to conservatives.

As in many areas, the decisions journalists make when deciding which voices to include in their stories have serious consequences. What is the picture of religious opinion? Who is a religious leader? Whose views represent important groups of believers? Every time a journalist writes a story, he or she answers these questions by deciding whom to quote and how to characterize their views.

Religion is often depicted in the news media as a politically divisive force, with two sides roughly paralleling the broader political divide: On one side are cultural conservatives who ground their political values in religious beliefs; and on the other side are secular liberals, who have opted out of debates that center on religion-based values. The truth, however is far different: close to 90 percent of Americans today self-identify as religious, while only 22 percent belong to traditionalist sects. Yet in the cultural war depicted by news media as existing across religious lines, centrist and progressive voices are marginalized or absent altogether.

In order to begin to assess how the news media paint the picture of religion in America today, this study measured the extent to which religious leaders, both conservative and progressive, are quoted, mentioned, and interviewed in the news media.

Among the study’s key findings:

• Combining newspapers and television, conservative religious leaders were quoted, mentioned, or interviewed in news stories 2.8 times as often as were progressive religious leaders.
• On television news — the three major television networks, the three major cable news channels, and PBS — conservative religious leaders were quoted, mentioned, or interviewed almost 3.8 times as often as progressive leaders.

• In major newspapers, conservative religious leaders were quoted, mentioned, or interviewed 2.7 times as often as progressive leaders.

Despite the fact most religious Americans are moderate or progressive, in the news media it is overwhelmingly conservative leaders who are presented as the voice of religion. This represents a particularly meaningful distortion since progressive religious leaders tend to focus on different issues and offer an entirely different perspective than their conservative counterparts.

The Christian right has no religious legitimacy. It is a mass political movement. It ignores the core values of the Christian religion, summed up by Jesus in the sermon on the mount, and the core values of American democracy. They are not biblical literalists as they claim- but selective literalists choosing bits and pieces of the Bible that conform to their ideology and bigotry and ignoring, distorting or making up the rest. ~Chris Hedges

More than five years after President Bush created the Office of Faith-Based Initiatives, the former second-in-command of that office went public with an insider’s tell-all account that portrays an office used almost exclusively to win political points with both evangelical Christians and traditionally Democratic minorities. See “Tempting Faith” an expose’ on how the GOP and the presiding admin. seduced and used the evangelicals for political power HERE at Christianbook.com.

Scott Starr said…

Ahhhh yes, when faith meets politics…

…its sorta like when Church meets the State, the World meets Chrisitianity, an Indian meets with a Uncle Sam bearing a treaty … or when…er….faith meets politics…

“We tried to tell them,”- Chief “Runs With Scissors”- Blacktoe Tribe

After the catastrophic Bush administration does anybody still think having Christians attempt to overtake political structures is a good thing? I maintain rendering into Caesar what is Caesar’s and letting the Church BE the Church is best for both Church and State- instead of the Church co-opting itself to the “World” ( I consider the idea that we Christians can control humanity by employing the infernal methodology of wordly politics and/or military might in the first place to be a very “liberal” - even humanist notion). Wake up.

Also click on the header below to learn more about:

The Evangelical Roots of American Unilateralism: The Christian Right’s Influence and How to Counter It.

Scott Starr said…

I can personally attest to being in the same room with a drunk George W. Bush on two occaisions- both between 1997 and 1999- well after he allegedly gave up drinking and after he started claiming sobriety and running for president.

So, apparently the image he constructed to win the support of evangelical Christians was a taylor made and yet false one.

The Christian right has no religious legitimacy. It is a mass political movement. It ignores the core values of the Christian religion, summed up by Jesus in the sermon on the mount, and the core values of American democracy. They are not biblical literalists as they claim- but selective literalists choosing bits and pieces of the Bible that conform to their ideology and bigotry and ignoring, distorting or making up the rest. ~Chris Hedges

More than five years after President Bush created the Office of Faith-Based Initiatives, the former second-in-command of that office went public with an insider’s tell-all account that portrays an office used almost exclusively to win political points with both evangelical Christians and traditionally Democratic minorities. See “Tempting Faith” an expose’ on how the GOP and the presiding admin. seduced and used the evangelicals for political power HERE at Christianbook.com.

Scott Starr said…

Ahhhh yes, when faith meets politics…

…its sorta like when Church meets the State, the World meets Chrisitianity, an Indian meets with a Uncle Sam bearing a treaty … or when…er….faith meets politics…

“We tried to tell them,”- Chief “Runs With Scissors”- Blacktoe Tribe

After the catastrophic Bush administration does anybody still think having Christians attempt to overtake political structures is a good thing? I maintain rendering into Caesar what is Caesar’s and letting the Church BE the Church is best for both Church and State- instead of the Church co-opting itself to the “World” ( I consider the idea that we Christians can control humanity by employing the infernal methodology of wordly politics and/or military might in the first place to be a very “liberal” - even humanist notion). Wake up.

Also click on the header below to learn more about:

The Evangelical Roots of American Unilateralism: The Christian Right’s Influence and How to Counter It.

Scott Starr said…

I can personally attest to being in the same room with a drunk George W. Bush on two occaisions- both between 1997 and 1999- well after he allegedly gave up drinking and after he started claiming sobriety and running for president.

So, apparently the image he constructed to win the support of evangelical Christians was a taylor made and yet false one.

95 Theses On the Nationalistic Idolatry
of Churches in the United States

From Source: http://www.kingdomnow.org/95Theses.html

[ Printer Friendly Formats: MS WORD .doc and Adobe PDF ]

Summary:
The tragedies of 11 September 2001 are grievous not only for the lives taken by terrorists, but also because their aftermath has powerfully revealed that we, the Church in the United States, have prostrated ourselves before the idol of our nation. Thus, it is with great sadness that the endorsers of this document humbly plead with our churches to join us in repentance, turning from the United States’ twisted notions of liberty, democracy and justice, from the historical misconceptions of its “Christian heritage” and from the ubiquitous greed that drives our nation. Jesus is calling his people in the United States today to grieve the sins of our nation, to return to our first love, and to once again recognize him alone as our King and the provider of our security.

Out of love and concern for the truth, and with the object of eliciting it, the following theses are submitted to the Church in the United States for public discussion, under the guidance of the endorsers of this document. We request that discussion on this matter be directed to: Our Discussion Board or discuss@kingdomnow.org.

Or of course we can discuss it right here at Geotheology.

This is what I call “Conservative.”

1. When our Lord and Master, Jesus Christ said, “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand,” he called us to become citizens of His Kingdom.

2. This Kingdom to which we are called cannot properly be understood as equivalent to any worldly kingdom (nation or empire) — cf., Jn 18:36, Lk 17:20-21.

3. Thus, the United States of America is not the Kingdom of God, nor did it ever have any special place — as a nation — in that Kingdom.

4. Furthermore, the United States, despite the manifold references to “God” in its defining documents, never recognizes Jesus as part of the Godhead it proclaims.

5. Despite its thoroughly religious character, the United States also never makes any pretension of allegiance to Jesus and to his will for establishing a kingdom here on Earth (Mt 6:10).

6. The Founding Fathers of the United States — despite their unanimous theism — held a wide spectrum of religious beliefs, and the claim that they all were disciples of Jesus is a dangerous falsehood grounded in boastful mythology that arose in the early nineteenth century.

7. Even those few Founding Fathers who did profess to follow Christ, generally yielded to the Enlightenment spirit of that day and understood their faith in very private, individualized terms.

8. Thus, they downplayed or ignored the socio-political reality of the Church (God’s people) as the Kingdom proclaimed, and established, by Jesus.

9. Therefore, the only vestige of the Christian faith that we find exhibited in the documents that established the United States are moral and legal imperatives condensed from the Scriptures.

10. However, the Founding Fathers did not adopt the moral and legal principles of the Scriptures as a whole, but rather selectively drew upon principles that fit their vision.

11. Thus, Scriptural principles that were not consistent with their worldly philosophies (economics, Enlightenment individualism, etc.) — e.g., the social and economic justice of the Jubilee — were discarded.

12. Even if the Founding Fathers had embraced the whole of Scriptural law (and yet refused to recognize Christ), the United States would not be a Christian Nation, for as the Apostle Paul reminds us (Rom. 3:20ff, Eph. 2:8-9, etc.) the basis of Christianity is faith in Christ’s gospel of grace, not Law.

13. Therefore, the Founding Fathers, by clinging to the philosophies of their day and thus relegating faith to the private sphere and by choosing a selective approach to the Scriptures, created in essence a space in which a new religion could arise.

14. As the nineteenth century progressed and as the United States grew as an economic and political power — and at the same time, as the church was waning as a cultural institution– a new religion did emerge, one which astute scholars have labeled the “American Civil Religion.”

15. The highest value of this American civil religion is not Christianity’s love for Yahweh and neighbor, but rather personal liberty.

16. For us, the followers of Jesus, liberty is a virtue, but it is not the highest virtue.

17. Indeed, Jesus’s statement that “You shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free” reminds us that true liberty comes only through Christ (who calls himself the “Truth,” John 14:6) and thus that liberty must take a backseat to Christ-like love.

18. Furthermore, the true freedom that we experience as a result of knowing and obeying Jesus (I Jn 2:3) is not something that a worldly government can either grant or deny.

19. Beginning with the American Revolution, the United States’ relentless pursuit of liberty has been the cause of most of its wars, in which hundreds of thousands of lives have been taken — including those of many Christians.

20. In contrast, Jesus himself distinguished His Kingdom from worldly ones by stating that His Kingdom needed no violence to defend it (Jn. 18:36).

21. Jesus’s words therefore remind us again that the United States is not the Kingdom of God, and that the God in which it trusts is not the triune Yahweh.

22. Thus, it is not difficult to see that this new American religion centered on liberty required a god shaped in its own image, an idol quite distinct from the triune God of the Christian faith.

23. This god, although he bore some resemblance to Yahweh, was more reminiscent of the ideological god of the eighteenth century philosophers and was strikingly characterized by the highest virtues of their humanism.

24. Robert Bellah has described this idol: “The god of the civil religion is not only rather ‘unitarian,’ he is also on the austere side, much more related to order, law and right than to salvation and love.”

25. Although the Founding Fathers did not intend to replace Christianity with a civil religion, they did expect that, at least for the nation’s leaders, Christianity would be subordinated to the will of the State (Robert Bellah has said: “(In the United States,) the national magistrate, whatever his private religious views, operates under the rubrics of the civil religion as long as he is in his official capacity.”)

26. Despite the intentions of the Founding Fathers, Jesus has made it clear that his followers (in the United States or elsewhere) cannot simultaneously serve two masters for they will end up loving one and hating the other– cf. Mt 6:24, Lk. 16:13.

27. Thus, American governmental officials who profess Christ (and particularly those at the highest levels) find themselves straining to serve two masters and we, the Church, should not look to them as heroes of the Christian faith or as prophets speaking God’s words to His people.

28. The American civil religion, with its idolatrous images of the divine, has survived throughout the history of the United States because it is useful for blinding and deceiving the Church.

29. For America to retain its power, we the Church must be deceived for as Herbert Richardson has said: “The real limitation on the power of the state is its citizens’ loyalty to and participation in groups whose membership, goals and procedures are not isomorphic or consistent with the membership, goals and procedures of the state.”

30. Following in the pattern of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden, we — the churches in the United States — have been greatly deceived by lies grounded in pride.

31. We have fallen prey to the presumptuous notion that our nation is God’s chosen people; this proud lie no doubt has numerous roots including the early Puritan view that understood the American colonies as a “New Israel” and the Founding Fathers’ choice to claim a divine origin for the fundamental values and laws of the nation.

32. The pride that we express as a Church in “the American way of life” wreaks havoc upon the fundamental equality and unity that undergirds Yahweh’s universal Church — cf. Gal. 3:28.

33. Indeed, many Christians around the world — e.g., in Germany or in Vietnam — have been hated or even killed as a result of the nationalistic pride of the United States, which is always at its highest levels during times of war.

34. Such nationalistic pride is incompatible with our calling to follow Jesus’s example of humility, “considering others better than ourselves” (Phil. 2:3).

35. Indeed, in the Old Testament, pride was a prominent symbol of the lack of God’s favor upon a person or a nation (cf. Ps 94:1-2, Pr 16:19, Is 2:12).

36. Thus, we — the Church in the U.S. — must carefully weigh nationalistic petitions for God to bless America against the biblical understanding of Yahweh as one who “opposes the proud, but gives grace to the humble” (James 4:6).

37. We also have been deceived into looking to its government for security — instead of looking to Yahweh.

38. It is Yahweh who created us and it is Yahweh who will sustain us and protect us (cf. Mt. 6:25-34).

39. Jesus told us that our primary calling as the Church is to seek first His Kingdom — not a worldly Kingdom — and when we do so, we are promised that our needs will be met (Mt 6:33).

40. Although the United States and other nations may set themselves up as providers of sustenance and security, we the Church must always remember that the power that Yahweh allows a nation to have is minuscule in comparison to Yahweh’s omnipotence.

41. Thus, the Scriptures provide us with images of Yahweh scoffing at nations (Ps. 2) and considering them as “less than nothing and emptiness” (Is. 40:17).

42. We must therefore understand the United States of America, as a “kingdom” of this world, in light of these Scriptural images, and thus treat it with a healthy dose of caution.

43. However, we the Church do have a clear biblical responsibility to lovingly respect and to pray for the governing authorities (cf. Rom. 12:14-13:8, I Tim. 2:1-2).

44. Maintaining an attitude of “loving respect” however does not mean that we have an obligation to endorse the government or to unconditionally approve of all its policies; neither does it mean that we should unquestioningly obey every one of the nation’s edicts.

45. Indeed, our primary responsibility is to be obedient to the triune God, for it is Yahweh, and not the United States, who dictates what is right.

46. Thus, the spirit of love reminds us that if — in a situation where the righteousness of Yahweh and the righteousness of the nation conflict– we choose to obey Yahweh, then we should be prepared to face the wrath of the state.

47. However, if we suffer, are imprisoned or even die for our insistence on being obedient to Jesus, we are blessed by Yahweh (cf. I Pet 2:19-21, Mt 5:10).

48. Our call to lovingly respect the governing authorities of the nation, also dictates that we should not angrily demonize the government, but instead mourn the sins of her nation.

49. We, the Church in the United States, have also been deceived about the way in which Yahweh’s blessing is poured out; viz., economic wealth is rarely a sign of God’s blessing.

50. And in those instances where Yahweh does bless a person or people with wealth, the intent is that that wealth should be lavished upon others, not stored up (Mt. 6:19-21, I Tim. 6:5-11, Lk. 3:11).

51. Indeed, the New Testament image of the Church’s economics is one characterized by sharing (Greek, “koinonia”), not by greed or the amassing of capital (cf. Acts 2:44-45, 4:32, I John 1:6-7).

52. In contrast, the power of the United States has come through economic domination as much as it has through political domination.

53. Thus, the nation of the United States with its wealth — especially relative to the rest of the world — must be regarded by the Church with caution for money is a powerful force and one that easily can become a false god (cf. Mt 6:24).

54. After encountering the rich young ruler, Jesus remarked to his disciples that: “It will be hard for a rich person to enter the kingdom of heaven” (Mt. 19:23).

55. Similarly, it would seem equally difficult for a wealthy nation to attain a favorable status in the Kingdom that Jesus proclaimed.

56. Thus, in light of the United States’ wealth, we must examine critically any claim that the U.S. is favored by Yahweh.

57. In accord with the Scriptural principle that conflict and wars often have their origins in greed (Jam. 4:1-2), the affluence of the United States has been a major contributing factor to both the wars it waged abroad (e.g., in the Persian Gulf, to protect its access to oil) and its excessive spending on the defense of its own soil.

58. The rich young ruler, held captive by his own greed, made a decisive choice to not follow Jesus, and a good case can be made that the United States has done likewise.

59. We the Church have, in many cases, also been blinded to the fact that the United States is not a democracy.

60. From its earliest days to the present, from the male Colonial land-owners to Corporations and lobby groups, the power in the United States has always rested primarily in the hands of the wealthy.

61. Furthermore, the United States historically has never completely succeeded at protecting the basic rights of its most powerless minorities: from Native Americans to Blacks to Women to the unborn.

62. Despite the fact that — in the words of Frederick Douglass — the United States’ own claims of equality and democracy are “hollow mockery,” it hypocritically has been quick to take up arms in defense of democracy abroad (Korea, Vietnam, etc.).

63. Indeed, democracy — even in its purest incarnation — is not the modus operandi of the Kingdom of God, for our sovereign and omnipotent King Yahweh loves all people and thus has a special concern for the marginalized minority (cf. Lk. 4:16-20).

64. Thus, we the Church in the United States must be careful not to put too high of a value on democracy, lest visions of this earthly form of government obscure the sovereignty of God.

65. Furthermore, we as God’s chosen people — for whom mere anger is a grave sin (cf. Mt 5:21-22) — cannot endorse wars waged in the name of earthly ideals including democracy.

66. Justice, like democracy and liberty, is another ideal that the United States is quick to defend.

67. The Scriptures are unquestionably clear that Yahweh is a God who delights in justice (cf. Is. 5:16, 30:8, Mic. 6:8, etc.).

68. However, genuine justice must be grounded in Truth, not half-truths, rumors, speculations or propaganda.

69. We, the Church in the United States, have a responsibility to act like the Church in Berea (Acts 17:10-11), carefully examining in the light of the Scriptures the claims that are brought before it.

70. Thus, given that the concepts of liberty and democracy that the United States presents are flawed, we should be particularly careful when the United States makes appeals to justice.

71. One of our fundamental principles as the Church is that humanity is deeply flawed (or “fallen”), and therefore that any human claims to truth (and thus justice also) must be made in humility, admitting the possibility of error.

72. Therefore, we must also carefully examine the attitude with which the United States (or any government) makes appeals to justice.

73. The Old Testament law, in sanctioning “an eye for an eye,” thus limits the scope of just retribution to no more than was taken.

74. Thus, we the Church who have been called by Jesus to an even higher standard than that of the Old Testament (Mt. 5:38-42), must resist initiatives of retaliatory rage that seek to be increasingly destructive, for we cannot both love Yahweh and hatefully destroy other human beings (I Jn. 4:20).

75. Although we the C