Christian Identity and Patriotism

INTRODUCTION

Days of national remembrance are times to remember fallen soldiers and to respect their sacrifices. In the United States, Memorial and Independence Day stand as testament of these soldiers, their past victories, and the freedom our nation has valiantly earned. Many Americans mark these days with gatherings, barbecues, cherishing moments with loved ones, or by simply resting from work. Even local churches partake in the festivities. In my childhood, I often attended a yearly Memorial Day picnic where diverse Korean churches of different denominations would come together. There, we played volleyball, tug of war, and celebrated together. Some churches raise the US flag in places of worship, sing the National Anthem, or pledge allegiance to the flag. While some Christians find solace in these seemingly benign acts of civic participation, viewing them as their duty or sincere tribute to the fallen soldiers of our land, others perceive these acts as excessive devotion to the State that far exceeds their commitment to King Jesus. Indeed, many believers see the act of raising a national symbol in worship spaces an affront to the sanctity of the space where the local congregation finds unity under the emblem of the cross.

Unquestionably, the spirit of civic participation runs deep within the American heart. Growing up in public school, we ritualistically recited the Pledge of Allegiance before class and sang the National Anthem before every sporting event. Even living abroad, I have heard folks say Americans are fanatically patriotic. However, I do not think this is distinctly American but can affect people in different contexts and nationalities. Merely a generation ago, European nationalism swept across the continent leaving in its wake a trail of devastating consequences. But it is vital to acknowledge that national pride, in and of itself, is not inherently wicked. For myself, I hold a profound gratitude for my country and take pride of being a citizen of the United States. Yet, as a person of faith, something exists beneath the surface of this attitude that requires me to interrogate it further.

In keeping with my faith and its principles, I choose not to sing the National Anthem or pledge my allegiance to the flag. This commitment is even more urgent considering the rising tide of Christian nationalism in the States. It is my intention to articulate this commitment and firmly position myself against any competing claims of nationalistic loyalty. As a follower of Jesus, my first and exclusive loyalty is to him. It finds its foundation in the sacrifice of Jesus, the kingdom of God, and the hope of the future restoration of the cosmos. Anchored in these profound truths means that no civic institution, nation-state, or earthly kingdom can rightfully demand my allegiance. Thus, the recitation of the pledge and singing of the anthem serve as visible markers of one’s devotion. By participating in these acts, individuals not only signify their submission to a political entity but inadvertently embrace its ethos of domination and control. Within worship spaces, this juxtaposition becomes particularly poignant. Such participatory rituals vie for one’s loyalty and establish boundaries of national identity. On the other hand, the cross compels us to lay cast aside our civic and national identities. This is precisely why I refuse to participate in these State rituals either in the public sphere and especially in places of worship.

In what follows are musings and ongoing reflections that help me to navigate this complex issue. Hopefully, for those that have not thought about this, it will provide some clarity about some of the issues, and for those that have thought about their Christian identity in a political world, it will help them to further engage in this discussion.

BIBLICAL AND THEOLOGICAL CONCERNS

1-Worldly leaders and kings are often seen in opposition to God

Worldly leaders and kings are often depicted as being in opposition to God in biblical texts. For instance, Pharaoh opposed God in the book of Exodus and was ultimately defeated. Despite Pharoah’s expressed will, God led the Hebrew people out of Egypt. Nebuchadnezzar also found himself in opposition to God and was struck dumb for placing himself in the status of God (Dan 4:28–37). Similarly, Belshazzar was struck dead for using utensils from the temple in Jerusalem during a feast (Dan 5). Cyrus, on the other hand, is portrayed as being under the reign of God, although not negatively (2 Chron 36:22–23). Thus, God’s reign and control extend beyond the monarchies of Judah and Israel; even secular rulers are under his gaze and scrutiny.

It is worth noting that Israel wanted a king like the other nations, and God granted their request, although it was not his original intention (1 Sam 8:5–9, 19–21). It is striking that God takes this request as a rejection of his rule (1 Sam 7). The establishment of the monarchy indicated that the people were turning away from their true king. Among the lineage of the Judean monarchy, there were only a few good kings compiled from the records of 1– 2 Chronicles. These righteous few include David, Solomon, Abijah, Jehoshaphat, Jotham, Hezekiah, and Josiah. Out of all the kings, these seven were determined to be righteous. The remaining fifteen kings, such as Asa, Joash, Uzziah, Manasseh, Rehoboam, Jehoram, Ahaziah, Queen Athaliah, Amaziah, Ahaz, Amon, Johoahaz, Jehoiakim, Jehoiachin, and Zedekiah, were considered evil. This assessment does not even encompass all the wicked kings of Israel. The historical records of Kings and Chronicles predominately portray the monarchy in a negative light, which is forecasted by 1 Samuel 8 and the people choosing to be ruled by a worldly system like the rest of the neighboring kingdoms.

The notion of kings being in opposition to God is not limited to the Old Testament but also appears in the New Testament. In Matthew’s Gospel, Jesus is clearly contrasted with Herod the Great, since Jesus is the true king of Jews, whereas Herod is not (Matt 1–2). In the genealogy of Jesus, his lineage is traced from both Abraham and David which heightens the expectation that Jesus fulfills salvation history where God’s messianic purposes are achieved through him (Matt 1:1–17). Herod is frequently referred to as the king of the Jews in other literature, including Josephus, but serves as a client king of Rome. Notice the question posed by the magi in Matthew 2:1–2, “After Jesus was born in Bethlehem in Judea, during the time of King Herod, Magi from the east came to Jerusalem and asked, ‘where is the one who has been born king of the Jews? We saw his star when it rose and have come to worship him.’” Not only do they address this question to the false king of the Jews, but they also associate the Messiah with a cosmic sign. Interestingly, Roman rulers such as Caesar Augustus were associated with comets or stars upon their deaths, signifying their ascension into the heavenly pantheon. By associating Jesus with a star, the magi clearly indicate they were searching for a divine king which implies that Herod is a fraud.

In Luke’s Gospel, Jesus’s birth is situated during the time of Caesar Augustus, who was believed to bring about an era of Roman peace to the world. The Gospel writers not only contrast Herod and Jesus, but also draw a comparison between Jesus and the “king of the world,” Augustus (Luke 2:1). Despite the timing issues between Augustus’ reign and the governorship of Quirinius (Luke 2:2), Luke deliberately includes the reference to Augustus to underscore this contrast. Keeping in mind this juxtaposition, just before chapter 2 in Luke, Mary’s song emphasizes God’s mighty works and his ability to bring down rules from their thrones (Luke 1:52). These messianic expectations are also expressed in Zechariah’s song (Luke 1:67–79).

Later in Acts, Herod Agrippa is struck dead because of his opposition to God (Acts 12:19–24). In other texts, the contrast between Jesus and the worlds powers is cast in language associating Rome with Babylon (1 Peter 5:13; Rev 14:8; 16:19; 17:5; 18:2, 10, 21). Rome in this case oppresses people, acts contrary to God’s will and thus invites God’s judgement. Worldly powers are constantly seen in opposition to God and are negatively appraised.

2-Christians are called sojourners or temporary residents (1 Peter 1:1)

Christians are referred to as sojourners or temporary residents by Peter in his letter to the believers in Asia Minor including Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia (1 Peter 1:1). This is odd considering that these individuals were actual residents of their respective lands. There is also no indication that they were living nomadic lives or constantly moving from place to place. They had settled in actual physical locations, and while some might have been migrants from other areas, many were long-term residents of their own lands.

Some of these regions were Roman provinces, and certain cities held special honors bestowed upon them by Rome. Among the Christian community, there were individuals with Roman citizenship, as well as slaves and non-Roman citizens. Those who strongly identified with their Roman heritage might have taken pride in their citizenship. However, it is noteworthy that Peter does not emphasize Roman identity. Peter makes it clear that they are to see themselves primarily as transient residents on this earthly realm. In other words, he encourages them to reorient their focus away from their connection to Rome or their homeland and to unite under their identity in Christ.

Throughout the text, there is a consistent de-prioritization of societal status and privileges. The believers are described as chosen (1 Peter 1:1), a new people comprising a royal priesthood and holy nation (1 Peter 2:9–10). They are again referred to as foreigners and exiles (1 Peter 2:11). Even in the household code, where one might expect an emphasis on submission to governing authorities, the ultimate authority is recognized as God, as they are called to obey “for the Lord’s Sake” (1 Peter 2:13). In this same vein, the supreme ruler, Caesar, is referred to as a human creature, which is fundamentally subversive in the 1st century world, where Caesar was viewed as the head of the empire’s household, possessing absolute rule over his subjects, and even regarded as divine. This does not imply that Christians were exempt from obeying governing authorities, but rather their relationship to these authorities were fundamentally reevaluated and reprioritized. Thus, Peter's intention is to remind the Christian community of their temporary and transitory nature as residents on Earth. He encourages them to unite under their shared connection to Christ, surpassing any attachments to earthly identities or authorities.

3-Christians are citizens of God’s kingdom (Phil 3:20)

Connected to the idea of being exiles and foreigners in 1 Peter, there is the explicit call for the Philippians to see themselves as citizens of heaven in (Phil 3:20). In this context, Paul encourages the Philippians to follow his example. It is likely that there were agitators urging believers to undergo circumcision (Phil 3:2–4). These individuals are focused on earthly matters and driven by their own desires (Phil 3:15–21). However, Paul challenges the notion that earthly status, privilege, and accolades hold any true value compared to the knowledge of Christ (Phil 3:5–14). It is within this context that Paul makes the claim about being citizens in heaven.

The idea of believers seeing themselves as citizens of heaven is particularly significant. One of the reasons Paul mentions this is because of the imperial context of Philippi, which was a Roman colony that possessed a certain amount of privilege and status. The city also had a significant population of former soldiers who were rewarded with land after their military service. Thus, Philippi was known for its loyalty to Rome, pride in its status, and patriotism. Philippi is called a Roman colony and the leading city of that district (Acts 16:12). This identity is evident when the Philippians accuse Paul and Silas of promoting customs that Romans could not accept (Acts 16:21). Paul and Silas gain the upper hand in the conflict by invoking their Roman citizenship, which was highly valued by the Philippians (Acts 16:37–40). These examples highlight the significance of patriotism and imperial identity in Philippi.

Additionally, the Christ Hymn in the letter to the Philippians emphasizes that Christ is above all, and every knee will bow and every tongue confess that he is Lord (Phil 2:5–11). He serves as the model for believers as they adopt the mindset of Christ (Phil 2:5), and it is noteworthy that every earthly authority and individual will acknowledge his rule. Christ surpasses all, and everything comes under submission to his rule. In contexts where there are competing loyalties, such as in Philippi, Paul reorients their allegiance to align with the Gospel. He calls the Philippian believers citizens of heaven, not of Rome. Also, this does not diminish the importance of Roman identity to Paul Silas, since claim it (Acts 16:37).

4-We are not to worship any other gods beside the Lord (Exod 20:3)

The role of flags, patriotism, and civic pride are subject to debate, as to whether they can be considered idolatrous and in what sense. It is important to acknowledge that these concepts function differently in our daily lives and in society, and the use of flags is not universally idolatrous. For example, national pride during the Olympics or a collective celebration of a national achievement can be exciting and unifying. We also have an obligation to participate in civic processes such as voting and electing officials without considering ourselves at odds with God. We can be politically active and seek to reform our systems through democratic process.

However, there is a danger in seeking to enact God’s kingdom through the political system. This critique is often raised by those who refuse to participate due to indifference, those who hold an apocalyptic framework that deems their faith irrelevant to worldly matter, those who view humanity solely as disembodied souls without considering the goodness of our embodied existence, and those who harbor deep reservations about political entitles, equating them with evil itself.

Jesus was confronted with an all or nothing proposition when offered the kingdoms and powers of the world if he worshiped Satan. In response, Jesus quoted Deuteronomy 6:13 affirming that only the Lord our God should be worshipped (Matt 4:8–10). This interaction revealed that the worldly kingdoms are under the dominion of Satan and that these kingdoms represented a shortcut that deviated from the way in which God the Father intended Jesus to rule. Jesus’ path to rule was not through the world’s systems, but through the the way of the cross.

The ways of power and authority do not align with worldly standards. These kingdoms, to some extent, still operate under Satan’s authority. While participation in these kingdoms is inevitable, we should at least consider how our actions may further the agenda of worldly empires rather than advancing God’s kingdom. This can happen when we assume implicitly that the political system and the kingdom of God are coterminous, or when we believe that our goal as Christians is to achieve political power. The framework of a “culture war” forces us in a zero-sum game where any political agenda we do not capitalize on or that the opposing side achieves is seen as our loss. When we lose ourselves in this political identity or pursue wordily power, we succumb to the temptation that Jesus resisted.

5-The cosmic scope of God’s plan in Christ

The inevitable end of all God’s salvation history is the reconciliation of all creation in Christ, where all powers and authorities are submitted to him. The Gospel reveals the mystery that all people are brought together with Israel and become fellow heirs (Eph 3:6). God’s intention is to display his manifold wisdom to all the cosmic powers through the Church (Eph 3:10–11). In Christ we are reconciled both to one another and to God. He is our peace and will ultimately bring unity to all things in heaven and on earth (Eph 1:10). As the Church, our existence reflects this ultimately reality in Christ. The divisions between Jew and Gentile are broken down, creating a new humanity in his body (Eph 2:14–18). We are even instructed to prepare our feet with the preparation given by the good news of peace in the discourse highlighting the spiritual armor (Eph 6:15). Through this, we stand firm against the schemes of the enemy by being aware of the reconciliation that has occurred in Christ’s and his message of peace, which has formed a new humanity. This serves as a defense against the schemes of the enemy, allowing us to be secure in the reality of being a new people in Christ.

An aspect of this cosmic reconciliation through the Gospel is the unity that has been achieved within people groups, traditions, nationalities, and cultures. We are to fundamentally see ourselves as a new people. The unity we emphasize through the gospel of peace requires us to denounce things that divide God’s people. Displays of national pride and symbols have historical currents that create barriers between people, and if not checked, can even be felt within the church.

These symbols are not mere empty gestures but carry real cultural and historical resonances that have tangible effects. For instance, a recent online video depicted a Ukrainian Member of Parliament waving the Ukrainian flag behind a Russian official. A Russian man approached and snatched the flag away, resulting in a physical altercation. While this moment is framed by hostility and war, it illustrates that the symbol of the flag is not neutral. The flag embodies a collection of meanings, histories, and cultural resonances. It can rally a people for war, symbolize liberty and freedom, or be perceived as a sign of tyranny by others. For one person, a flag might represent loyalty to their nation, while for another, it signifies respect for their ancestors. To some, the flag represents nationalistic pride above all else. While these associations may not be idolatrous, the lines of loyalty can easily blur between God and country. The fact that believers within the community may interpret these associations differently should compel us to question its display in worship contexts or resist the temptation of offering allegiance to it. The unity of the body is of utmost importance.

6-Submission to State does not preclude questions, remonstrations, or qualified loyalty and support

Texts that refer to submission to the State (Jesus paying taxes, Rom 13, 1 Peter 2) are part of a larger conversation about our legal or civic obligations to the State. It is important to consider the specific context in which passages were written, as they differ from our present circumstances. It is also worth noting that these passages do not advocate for blind submission or unquestioning approval of the State.

For example, in Romans 13:3, the argument assumes that political institutions established by God are meant to maintain order by punishing the evildoers and rewarding good behavior. The passage implies that if these institutions fail to fulfill this purpose, they are not truly instituted by God. Additionally, God is recognized as the ultimate authority (Rom 13:1), which introduces another important aspect to consider when contemplating our civic obligations. Moreover, the significant differences between their autocratic systems and our democratic system should lead us to a more nuanced understanding, rather than applying a simplistic and one-dimensional interpretation to our own political situation. It is also crucial that we avoid using Romans 13 to justify entrenched corruption, political apathy, or retreatism.

The instruction to be good citizens and pray for our leaders (1 Tim 2:2) was given with the intention of living peaceful lives (1 Tim 2:2). This command is meant to facilitate effective witness and communal worship without undue interference or oversight from the State. Paul’s guidance to the early Christian community aligns with their initial identification as a sect of Judaism within the Roman Empire, rather than being recognized as a distinct religious entity. However, as history progressed, depending on the specific time and place, imperial policies sometimes challenged Christian loyalty to Christ. In such cases, many Christians lost their lives for defying the State, emphasizing the supremacy of Christ as King. Considering the potential consequences, Paul deemed it reasonable to pray for authorities so that believers could live and worship in peace.

While there may not be direct biblical citations addressing every specific circumstance, such as pledging allegiance or displaying state symbols during national holidays in worship services, taking these broader considerations into account leads to a reasonable inference that early Christians would likely have been astonished at the casual way we conform to these nationalistic rituals, considering the complexities and potential conflicts with our faith and allegiance to Christ.

7-The overarching message of the NT is that Jesus is King

The central message of the New Testament is that Christ is the ultimate authority and King over everything. The New Testament emphasizes that our lives, allegiances, and devotion should be fully submitted to Jesus. This means that no other claim, power, authority, or institution should take precedence over our love and loyalty to Jesus. Regardless of how subtle or seemingly harmless, no earthly king, ruler, or leader can replace Jesus as Lord.

This foundational principle serves as a starting point and a lens through which to approach our biblical and theological reflections. It shapes our understanding of God's kingdom and the proper ordering of our lives in relation to him. By acknowledging Jesus as our supreme Lord, we recognize the unparalleled significance of his authority and prioritize his teachings and example in every aspect of our lives.

PASTORAL AND HISTORICAL CONSIDERATIONS

1-The national flag and recitation of allegiances are symbols of power and control

The raising of the flag in occupied and war-torn regions, as well as the association of the US flag with its military might and tyranny, requires careful consideration. US military bases, tanks, planes, and soldiers all possess identification markers that many deem to be associated with the empire. With many global military bases, the US has a global brand, and it is typically associated with its military, and flag. This association with military power can evoke negative perceptions, particularly among people from regions affected by US wars and conflicts.

Similarly, throughout history, empires like the British Empire carried their flags and military presence as symbols of domination and control. The exploitation of people and resources for their own gain is a recurring theme in the condemnation of empires, including the depiction of Babylon in the book of Revelation (Rev 18).

Flags, in general, hold significant meaning and can communicate various messages about territorial boundaries, political allegiance, group membership, and identity. As Christians, we need to be mindful of the power dynamics and associations attached to flags, including the US flag and other national flags. The blending of Church and State in the past, as seen in European history, serves as a cautionary example of the potential pitfalls of nationalistic fervor.

2-Symbols like the flag or anthems can separate identities between believers

The symbol of the cross communicates a shared reality for all believers throughout time. Christians are unified by Jesus’ work on the cross and made into a new community that transcends national, cultural, linguistic, and theological boundaries. National symbols, such as flags, are often associated with empires, and can have nationalistic inclinations, particularly during times of conflict or natural disasters. These symbols can unite people and foster a sense of national identity and solidarity, which can have positive effects in certain contexts. However, when nations are pitted against one another, a rigid and absolute identification with one’s country can create divisions between groups that become untraversable.

While there are situations where loyalty to one's country becomes necessary, such as in countries with compulsory nationalism or in contexts like China and Russia, it is important to recognize that our ultimate allegiance as Christians is to God's kingdom. While perhaps not as extreme, countries like the US also have an implicit system of coercion. Reciting the Pledge or singing the Anthem is a common practice, and dissent from these activities, whether on social justice or religious grounds are often perceived as subversive or at the very least, met with disapproval. Although this social pressure is not physical coercion, it does communicate unspoken rules about the patriotic expected from citizens.

It is crucial to approach these matters with discernment, being aware of the potential conflicts between our faith and nationalistic tendencies. Our commitment to God's kingdom should always take precedence over any earthly allegiances, and we must strive to foster unity, understanding, and love across all boundaries in the light of our shared identity in Christ.

3-Christians today who hold to the perspective that national symbols of identity compete with the claims of the cross have a robust theological tradition with which to identify.

Christian history is replete with examples of emphasizing the authority of Jesus over State powers. Many of these believers risked their lives to not comprise their faith. Early Christians were persecuted by claiming that there was no king but Jesus. They were willing to die for their beliefs rather than capitulate to State powers. Their loyalty was only to Jesus, not Caesar. Later in church history, the reformers, and radical reformers, like the Anabaptists were very suspicious of State rule and its connection to Christian identity. They desired to worship how they wanted without interference from the State and recognized the conflicts and tension between the values of the kingdom of God and the values of earthly powers.

This theological tradition is not fringe, but one that connects to a vastly profound history. It is important to learn from the wisdom and experience of those who have gone before us. By drawing inspiration from the courageous testimonies of saints throughout history who prioritized their loyalty to Jesus above all else, we can be encouraged to remain steadfast in our commitment to Christ and his teachings, even in the face of challenges and competing allegiances.

4-What are the connotations of the flag and/or what is the message being portrayed?

To ascertain whether we are mixing ideas of faith and politics, it is helpful to ask ourselves a series of questions. For instance, should Christians feel obligated to display patriotism by pledging allegiance to the flag or reciting national anthems? Must Christians align with conservative or Republican ideologies? Is it necessary for a "good" Christian to oppose certain social movements like being anti-woke or Critical Race Theory? In the case of British Christians, can they hold the view that the monarchy is outdated and advocate for change? Can British Christians have divergent opinions on Scottish Independence? Whenever we assert that a Christian must believe certain political propositions, we run the risk of defining Christian identity by these same political positions.

Another way to assess ourselves is by examining the language we use in spiritual contexts in relation to political events. Do we claim that political leaders are divinely chosen? Do our churches pray against specific political parties? Are political agendas promoted from the pulpit? Engaging in these practices blurs the lines between political and spiritual realities, shaping Christian identity and expression more by our political beliefs than our theological convictions.

It is important to navigate the complexities of faith and politics with humility, recognizing that Christianity encompasses a wide range of perspectives. Our primary allegiance is to Christ, and while our faith may inform our political views, we must be cautious not to conflate the two or impose rigid expectations on fellow believers.