Table of Contents | 2. Can a Christian be a patriot?
One of the more difficult challenges for a follower of Jesus is that of balancing allegiance to God and allegiance to country. Many of us choose one or the other. But this isn't an acceptable alternative for me. For the follower of Jesus who takes seriously his or her commitment to gospel it is bewildering as well as exceedingly difficult to determine what faith demands. Because we are troubled by terrorists and rumors of war and potential conflict and because we need to be secure and safe, it is tempting to give unquestioning and uncritical allegiance to our government. This temptation becomes even more plausible when given articulate and passionate expressions by George W. Bush, Dick Chaney and Donald Rumsfield. Surely, they wouldn't mislead! Yet, by now it is clear that they have. The folly of uncritical allegiance to government has some dramatic and incredible forms. In his memoirs entitled A World Transformed George H. W. Bush wrote about why he didn't go deeper into Iraq at the end of the Gulf War. He claimed, "Trying to eliminate Saddam Hussein would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible.... We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. There was no viable 'exit strategy' we could see, violating another of our principles. Furthermore, we have been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-cold war world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the United Nations' mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression that we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the United States could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land." I find it impossible to believe that the world of President George W. Bush has changed to such an extent that the words of his father should go unheeded! Not even the events of 9/11 suggest that! Smart bombs don't justify a dumb mission. So who do I trust? We can't ignore what the one we seek to follow said. As I understand his words, he asserted that we must give "to Caesar only what belongs to Caesar." How am I to know what "belongs to Caesar" or my country? Does this mean that I must follow, without criticism, decisions that seem to conflict with our vocation to which Jesus referred when he said, "Blessed are the peacemakers?" I still have major reservations about "a pre-emptive strike" as a policy of government. And, with Iraq, in view of the inability to find "weapons of mass destruction," a search that triggered the war, that same reluctance has been intensified. The opposition of most of the world continues to bother me. My reservations remain. And my struggle to be faithful to gospel and loyal to country continues unabated. I am genuinely grateful for life in this land and for those who see that I am safe and free. But the yearning for security must not negate the dream of our founders for a land of liberty, justice and freedom. In fact that longing should serve to intensify our commitment to this land as a beacon of freedom. This country doesn't need a doting and blind love. It needs the determination of all of us to help her live up to her best. How does one love this land in a fashion that is neither doting nor blind? How should you express that kind of love when you believe, as I do, that Patrick McCormick lifts up some alarming concerns when he wrote in the U. S. Catholic, "The scandal of America is not that we can't build creches in city parks or say prayers in our public schools but that our social policies threaten to force so many people to sleep in those same parks and that we are abandoning millions of children to a decaying educational infrastrucsture without so much as a prayer. The shame of the nation is not that it can't have a benediction at a pep rally but that it treats its children, its sick and its poor so shabbily?" Are there any guidelines to help one who is stubbornly loyal and faithfully Christiana? Is there an acceptable, even patriotic, way to challenge this "scandal of America?" With broad brush strokes, it surely includes a determination to keep informed about the issues of justice on local, state and national levels. Moreover, it means a recognition of the perspective that we live in a world community. It means that the positions of political candidates and the effect of those views on issues must be examined, discussed and supported to whatever extent one determines. When we participate in the passion of God, it means loving that which God loves, practicing compassion and justice in our nation as well as in the world and using our vote to hold our leaders accountable, even when they claim to know best and proceed to ignore the views of "the loyal opposition!" N. T. Wright, in his For All God's Worth: True Worship and the Calling of the Church, offers these challenging words for the church. "Blessed are the merciful; how are people to believe that, in a world where mercy is weakness, unless we visit the prisoner and welcome the prodigal? Blessed are the pure in heart; how will people believe that, in a world where impurity is big business, unless we ourselves are worshipping the livng God until our own hearts are set on fire and scorched with his purity? Blessed are the peacemakers; how will we ever learn that, in a world where war in one country means business for another, unless the church stands in the middle and says that there is a different way of being human, a different way of ordering our common life? Blessed are those who are persecuted and insulted for the kingdom's sake; how will that message ever get across if the church is so anxious not to court bad publicity that it refuses ever to say or do anything that might get it into trouble either with the authorities for being so subversive or with the revolutionaries for insisting that the true revolution begins at the foot of the cross? I wish I could say that I knew of a church somewhere in the world that had really grasped this strange agenda and was struggling to live by it....I regret that I don't often come across them." I am full of hope because there is some evidence, however scant, that the church is willing to stand against the tide of blind patriotism in favor of a loyalty to gospel that includes loving country faithfully! ________ Mother Jones, March/April 2004 has some astounding excerpts taken from the speeches of Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia. An early speech on the war in Iraq is found at www.abc-usa.org/2003/20030310.htm. Another description is found in The Washington Spectator for March 1, 2004, writtten by Redington Jahncke. "...The current administration's unilateralist foreign policy...is illegitimate by definition. If one nation acts alone it thinks that it is right. However, legitimacy is conferred by the agreement of others. The current administration acted alone in Iraq. The 'coalition of the willing' was a sham. The administration claimed to have 47 allies in its 'coalition.' To appreciate the emptiness of this claim, take a map of the world and color in the members. In the Western Hemisphere, for example, there were just seven members, six tiny Central American nations and Columbia. Four were microscopic Pacific island nations that can scarcely be found on a world map. What meaningful role could the Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Palau or the Solomon Islands play in the 'coalition?' What role could there be for another 25 'coalition' members whose annual economic product is less than that of Massachusetts? Simple. The 'coalition's' only membership requirement was 'political support,' in White House words. The Administration was so desperate to find 'coalition' members that it included Afghanistan, which is like including an open-heart surgery patient on the roster of the hospital staff. The administration also included Turkey based upon the alternative-membership qualification of granting American military aircraft 'over-flight rights.' Having denied the U.S. overland passage for troops and equipment for the planned northern front of the Iraq invasion battle plan, Turkey was really no supporter of the administration's invasion. Of the nine remaining members of the 'coalition,' only three provided combat troops for the invasion: 200 Polish troops. 2,000 Australian troops and 45,000 British troops. British troops were reduced to 11,000 within months, leaving a ratio of about 10 U.S. troops for each 'coalition' ally soldier. Some coalition! "At the United Nations, there were 10 obviously opposed Security Council members. With this in mind, the administration's claim to have U.N. approval for the invasion of Iraq was empty indeed. In fact, the invasion lacked the support or consent of virtually all international organizations: the Arab League, the European Union, NATO and the Organization of American States. Put the absence of international approval in context. Immediately after 9/11, the whole world expressed its sympathy for our nation and rallied in support of our initial actions to combat terror.. NATO adopted a resolution approving U.S. action to invade Afghanistan and root out the terrorist Taliban and Al Queda organizations. So, when it came to Iraq, the world was not asleep. The world was not obstructionist. The U.N. was not lost in some meaningless peacetime debate. That the world did not back us on an Iraq invasion should have given pause to a prudent U.S. leadership.... Already, Iraq has cost this nation dearly in blood, treasure and international standing." NOTES: The following quotations are taken from speeches by Senator Robert Byrd and reported in Mother Jones, March/April 2004, pp. 18-19."Shrouded in ambiguity and cloaked in deep secrecy, this administration continues to...drop its decisions upon the public and Congress, and expect obedient approval, without question, without debate, without opposition." -- June 29, 2002. "I have often felt, in recent days, as if this 84-year-old man is the only thing standing between a White House hungry for power and the safeguards in the Constitution. That is not bragging --- that is lamenting." -- September 18, 2002. "The people are being offered a bureaucratic behemoth {the Department of Homeland Security}, complete with fancy, top-heavy directorates, officious new titles, and noble-sounding missions instead of real tools to help protect them from death and destruction. How utterly irresponsible. How callous. How cavalier....Politics in Washington has reached the apogee of utter cynicism and the perigee of candor." -- November 21, 2002. "This is no small conflagration we contemplate. This is no simple attempt to defang a villain. No. This coming battle, if it materializes, represents a turning point in the recent history of the world....The doctrine of pre-emption...is a radical new twist on the traditional idea of self-defense. It appears to be in contravention of international law and the U.N. Charter. And it is being tested at a time of world-wide terrorism, making many countries around the globe wonder if they will soon be on our -- or some other nation's -- hit list....To engage in war is always to pick a wild card. And war must always be a last resort, not a first choice. I truly must question the judgment of any president who can say that a massive unprovoked military attack on a nation which is over 50 percent children is 'in the highest moral traditions of our country.'" -- February 12, 2003."We cannot treat the citizens of this nation as if they are children who must be fed a fairy tale about fighting a glorious war of 'liberation' which will be cheap, short and bloodless." -- February 26, 2003. "Today I weep for my country....No more is the image of America one of strong, yet benevolent, peacekeeper....We flaunt our superpower status with arrogance. We treat U.N. Security Council members like ingrates who offend our princely dignity by lifting their heads from the carpet....This administration has directed all of the anger, fear, and grief which emerged from the ashes of the twin towers and the twisted metal of the Pentagon towards a tangible villain, one who can see and hate and attack. And villain he is. But, he's the wrong villain. And this is the wrong war." -- March 19, 2003. "This is not some made-for-TV backdrop for a campaign commercial. This is real life, and real lives have been lost. To me, it is an affront to the Americans killed or injured in Iraq for the president to exploit the trappings of war for the momentary spectacle of a speech. I do not begrudge his salute to America's warriors aboard the carrier Lincoln, for they have performed bravely and skillfully...but I do question the motives of a desk-bound president who assumes the garb of a warrior for the purposes of a speech." -- May 6, 2003. "What amazes me is that the president himself is not clamoring for an investigation. It is his integrity that is on the line....And yet he has raised no questions...expressed no anger at the possiblity that he might have been misled." --June 5, 2003. "The president has...stated that the war in Iraq is the central front on the war against terrorism. But it was our invasion of Iraq which has turned that nation into a staging ground for daily terrorist attacks against our occupation forces. If we are serious about protecting our country from terrorism, shouldn't the central front be the war on Al Queda? But at the White House...the president waves the bloody shirt of 9/11 and then subtly shifts the conversation to Iraq." -- September 10, 2003. |