After the historic election of Donald Trump to the Presidency of the United States, America seems to be embarking on a new era of nationalism. The well-known slogan “America-First” has both inspired and concerned Christian evangelicals. Should Christians embrace such a concept? Shouldn’t we be more globally minded? Aren’t we to be the light of the whole world, making disciples of all the nations? Such is the mantra of Christians who oppose patriotism and nationalism.
Recently, I listened to a Christian speaker revile the idea of nationalism. “Christians should never be country-first!” he proclaimed indignantly. “Our citizenship is in heaven!”
A contributor to Baptist News Global wrote similar sentiments saying, “…America First is not good for us.”1 He continued:
Trump’s own assertion begs a profound theological question: Is “America First” what righteous people and a righteous public should want? It is difficult for me to reconcile the acknowledged selfishness of “America First” with a Christian’s call to common humanity.
.
…are we American first or Christian first? And if our primary allegiance is to Christ, how can we cheer on a foreign policy that countenances the richest nation on the planet being primarily concerned with itself when more than half the world lives on less than $2 per day? My faith calls me to have concern for the least of these and looks to a model of Christ, who by his own testimony did not “come to be served, but to serve and give his [own] life a ransom for many” (Matt 20:28).1
In this article, we’ll tackle the question of country-first nationalism, along with other hot-button political topics such as globalism and multiculturalism. You’ll find my conclusions to be very different from those quoted above. Nationalism is not only sensible, it’s biblical. There is no way around it, in my view, especially when approaching the subject from a biblical origins perspective.
Origins of the Nations
As is the case with most difficult questions, we’ll start at the beginning. What does Genesis say about the origins of the nations? How did they come about? Thankfully, the Bible provides answers.
Nations are first mentioned in the book of Genesis, immediately after the flood. It’s not clear what government system(s) existed before the Flood but, afterward, God divided them by lands, languages and families (Gen. 10:5, 20, 31). As we read further, we find out God separated the nations forcefully, against man’s will.
Painting of the Tower of Babel by Pieter Bruegel the Elder, 1563 A.D.
Early after the Flood, the descendants of Noah intended to build a unified culture, centered in the land of Shinar. They began to build a city there with a high tower. But God disapproved and put an abrupt end to the project.
“Indeed the people are one and they all have one language, and this is what they begin to do; now nothing that they propose to do will be withheld from them. Come, let Us go down and there confuse their language, that they may not understand one another’s speech.” —Gen. 11:6b-7
Man wanted a unified nation centered around a single city. God wanted man to separate to the far reaching lands of the world. When man rebelled, God forced them to separate.
So the LORD scattered them abroad from there over the face of all the earth, and they ceased building the city. Therefore its name is called Babel, because there the LORD confused the language of all the earth; and from there the LORD scattered them abroad over the face of all the earth. —Gen. 11:8-9
Such is a recurring theme of history. “There are many plans in a man’s heart, Nevertheless the LORD’S counsel—that will stand.” —Prov. 19:21
The Wisdom of Separate Nations
The next logical question might be, why? Why did God want separate nations? Here we have to speculate a bit, but I believe Scripture offers some valuable insight. Just as God cursed the ground for our sake (Gen. 3:17), so He also divided the nations for our sake. Notice His concern over the unity of the descendants of Noah. “Indeed the people are one and they all have one language, and this is what they begin to do; now nothing that they propose to do will be withheld from them.”
God gave us great intelligence, but also the freedom to use that intelligence for evil. It seems, therefore, God wanted to slow man’s progress that he might not advance as quickly as he did before the Flood. Perhaps unspeakable evil would have resumed rapidly, had He not intervened. A divided mankind is still wicked, but a unified mankind knows no boundaries, is what the Text seems to say. There would be no wickedness out of his immediate reach.
Pre-Flood Globalism?
The antediluvians (our pre-flood ancestors), by all implications, were unified under one language on one supercontinent known as Pangea2. With no language or land barriers, they may have formed a unified super-culture which engulfed the entire population of the earth. Having both unity and long lifespans (900+years), some speculate their technologies may have rivaled ours. But, as we read the account, something went terribly wrong. Perhaps, an evil practice spread quickly though the entire unified population. Perhaps mankind was so unified before the Flood there was nothing they didn’t share and embrace.
This we know for sure. After a mere thousand or so years of existence, an unspeakable wickedness infected the entire earth, leaving only Noah and his family untouched.
Then the LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. And the LORD was sorry that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart. So the LORD said, “I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth, both man and beast, creeping thing and birds of the air, for I am sorry that I have made them.” But Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD. —Gen. 6:5-8
Dividing Evil
Thus, God may have divided the postdiluvian peoples (our post-flood ancestors) to save them from the fate of their ancestors. By dividing the nations, God was not only slowing advancement, but also quarantining evil, in a sense. Evil would certainly persist after the Flood, but would now be confined within cultural walls. Wickedness could still flourish within a particular nation, but not spread through the entire population as it did when mankind was completely unified. If a culture became too wicked, it could be wiped out.
As tragic as the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah was, it was limited to two cities. Had it not been for Babel, this might not have been the case.
Regardless of whether the above speculations capture the true reasonings of God, we can be sure of the following: God separated the nations for our sake. We, therefore, should be very wary of man’s attempts to reunite them.
Globalism vs. Nationalism
Globalism – a national policy of treating the whole world as a proper sphere for political influence (Merriam-Webster)
Globalism – the attitude or policy of placing the interests of the entire world above those of individual nations (dictionary.com)
The idea of globalism (political globalism to be precise) flies in the face of God’s actions at Babel, and should be a concern to all Christians. Since Babel, men have been trying to reunite the nations. Historically, this has been through conquest (or imperialism), but recently through political venues. The ultimate effort will come from the future Antichrist who will be given “authority over every tribe, people, language and nation.” (Rev. 13:7)
Christians, in particular, should be wary of these movements, knowing they are based in rebellion. If God separated the nations, we know Satan is ultimately behind their reunification. From gotquestions.org:
The Bible, therefore, shows that any time man attempts “globalization” it is ruled by wicked, ungodly empires. We should oppose globalization to the extent that we understand that it is implemented by Satan, currently the god of this age (2 Corinthians 4:4). It is interesting to note that man’s (and Satan’s) final attempt at globalization will include a resurgence of “Babylon,” which started the globalization effort so long ago (see Revelation 18).3
Christian Globalism?
But, what about The Great Commission? What about being a light to the whole world? One globalist Christian writes,
But more importantly, ask any Bible-believing Christian about Christ’s final commandment on earth and they’ll tell you about the Great Commission. Jesus said, “Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.”(Matthew 28:19)
.
In Acts 1:8, Jesus is also recorded to have said, “And you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth.”
.
If the Apostle Thomas had never heeded this “globalist” Great Commission, I probably wouldn’t be a Christian today. The Apostle Thomas obeyed the Great Commission by taking the gospel to India and bringing a few unreached higher caste Hindu families to the faith. My spiritual ancestry can be traced back to this small group of zealous Indian Christians.4
But this is conflating two different issues. Christians need to be very careful not to confuse political globalism with world-wide evangelism. The two have little in common. Yes, Christ commands us to make disciples of the nations, but notice He refers to the nations in the plural. “Make disciples of all the nations…baptizing them….” Notice Christ did not say, “Go unite the nations!” Do not confuse the evangelization of the nations with globalization of the nations.
Nationalism
Nationalism – spirit or aspirations common to the whole of a nation. devotion and loyalty to one’s own country; patriotism. (dictionary.com)
But what about the issue of nationalism—specifically country-first nationalism? Is it not a form of selfishness and idolatry as many critics charge?
Not only would I disagree, I would argue Scripture directly teaches nationalism. According to Paul we owe our nation taxes, customs, fear and honor.
For because of this you also pay taxes, for they are God’s ministers attending continually to this very thing. Render therefore to all their due: taxes to whom taxes are due, customs to whom customs, fear to whom fear, honor to whom honor. —Rom. 13:6-7
If you live in America, your biblical duties to your nation are clear—taxes, customs (also a form of taxation, telos in the greek, sometimes translated duties, tribute or revenue), fear (respect), and honor (loyalty, patriotism).
Please understand, if you are an American Christian, you don’t owe these debts to France, Russia or China. You don’t even owe them to Israel. You may want to help these nations in various ways, but, your first allegiance is to your homeland. America first.
Country-First Idolatry?
But shouldn’t we put God first? Shouldn’t we be Kingdom First? As the critic charged, “…are we American first or Christian first?”
But, I would contend these charges are specious, at best. Sheer common sense will tell you country-first merely means prioritizing your country before other countries. I’ve spoken with numerous Christians who are nationalists, and have yet to come across any who elevate their country above God. Furthermore, the very notion runs counter to the heart of American patriotism, which has always emphasized God in patriotic songs and oaths. Even our Pledge Of Allegiance avoids this confusion by explicitly stating we are “one nation under God.”
Country-first is very straightforward. Prioritize your home country above other countries. It’s simple and biblical. If you object, your argument is not with me.
But weren’t Hitler and the Nazis nationalists?!
No they were not. Hitler was an imperialist-globalist. He wanted to conquer the world and solve all its problems through a master race (a concept based on his strong belief in evolution). Hitler was definitely not a respecter of borders.
For more on this, check out this short video: Why You Should Be a Nationalist.
America First vs. America Only
But what about the rest of the world? Do we ignore the needs abroad? Do we ignore extreme poverty abroad?
I don’t believe America first, by any stretch, implies America only. It might be akin to the notion of family first. Certainly we care for all children, but our priority, as parents, must always be to our own kids. Even missionaries that move to poverty stricken lands agree their first responsibility is to their families. They help where they can, but don’t starve their own kids in order to feed others.
There is nothing in Paul’s commandment of taxes, customs, fear and honor (Rom. 13:7) demanding we cannot help other nations, love other nations, admire other nations, etc. His command does, however, indicate we prioritize our own country, just as one would prioritize his own family. There is nothing hateful or phobic about this.
Over the past decade, I’ve witnessed many people struggle with unemployment, and the inability to care for their families. It is an emotionally crushing thing to go through, especially for men who feel an obligation to provide. I have compassion for everyone, but my first obligation is to my fellow countrymen. This is God’s will, and let’s not forget that America is one of the most charitable nations on earth. When it’s healthy and working, the whole world benefits.
Honoring A Wicked Nation?
But what if you live in an evil nation? How can the Christian honor the dishonorable?
First, we need to understand that all nations fall short. All countries have sinned. While the United States has been an extraordinary force for good in the world, there is no question it has its stains, from racism and slavery in the past, to the slaughtering of the unborn in the present. It is, therefore, reasonable to ask, how can we honor a sinful nation? How can we respect the evils it has committed? And the question becomes even more valid when we look at other nations more wicked than ours.
Perhaps the best answer to this question is, the best we can. Paul was a Roman citizen when he penned Romans 13 and I think most would agree, Rome was not a model of righteousness. Yet, Paul honored it and often referred to its laws and privileges (Acts 16:37-38, 21:39, 22:25-29, 23:27).
By honoring your nation, you are not endorsing its sins. It’s much like the command to honor your mother and father. Some parents are saints, others are not. We honor them, not based on their perfection, but on God’s perfect commandment.
While Rome often made wrong choices, Paul desired the best for her, and I believe, prayed for her. Eventually, Rome supported Christianity and played a large role in its advancement, so perhaps Paul’s prayers were answered.
Multiculturalism vs. Assimilation
This brings us to the issue of multiculturalism within nations. There is a battle in our country over this, and, I believe, an important one. If Globalism wars with nationalism from without, multiculturalism wars with nationalism from within. There is a good healthy form of diversity (which I’ll discuss below), but also some dangerous ones.
First, there is a current push in our nation to impose language divisions. You might ask, What’s wrong with language divisions? But, that’s exactly what’s wrong with them. They divide. Think about how God used languages at Babel. Without communication, unity is futile. It is, therefore, imperative we, as a nation, stay united with a common language. Sure, some will be bilingual and multilingual, and some will have foreign accents, but that’s all well and good. Accents are a beautiful evidence of assimilation.
The problem comes when immigrants are not encouraged to learn our national language. This cripples assimilation and divides our communities.
Second, there is a push to celebrate the national origins of immigrants rather their new identity as Americans. Denis Prager writes,
Diversity and multiculturalism celebrate the national/ethnic identities of the nations from where American immigrants came instead of celebrating the American identity and traditional American values.
.
…..The left constantly repeats “we are a nation of immigrants” without citing the other half of that fact — “who assimilate into America.” The left mocks the once-universally held American belief in the melting pot. But the melting pot is the only way for a country composed of immigrants to build a cohesive society.
Diversity in a nation is a good thing, but should never supersede unity.
e pluribus unum
The Great Seal of the United States contains the unity message of e pluribus unum.
This brings me to an important concept all American Christians should learn about and embrace. I believe America to be a wonderful melting pot of languages and cultures which is consistent with one of our historical mottos, e pluribus unum—from many one.
This phrase appears on our Nation’s Great Seal, and also on the seals of the President, the Vice President, the Congress, the House of Representatives, the Senate and the Supreme Court.
e pluribus unum (from many, one) appears on all of our United States coins.
It also occurs on all our coins and our dollar bill. We have this value all around us, yet very few Americans are aware of it. But we should be!
American Christians, especially should be, because it’s in line with God’s purpose for individual nations, and stands in opposition to the multiculturalism that divides us. America, from its inception, is a blend of peoples from every background. We are united as a single people with one standard language (lots of wonderful accents, but one standard language). Certainly, we can celebrate diversity, but we should celebrate unity even more.
For a more thorough explanation of e pluribus unum, and how it fits into our American value system, I love this short 5 minute video by Dennis Prager.
(For further reading, see: A Nation of Immigrants — Only If They Assimilate)
Borders and Walls
An article on nationalism and globalism would not be complete without mentioning borders and walls. They are political hot-buttons for good reason. Secure borders are to nationalists, what open-borders are to globalists. It should be no surprise, therefore, that nationalists advocate strongly for borders and globalists, even Christian globalists, loathe borders.
If American Christians choose to build walls around themselves today, who will take the gospel to the 6,688 unreached people groups (around 3.1 Billion people) in the world?3
But, I can only scratch my head and wonder how we got to a place where open-borders were somehow related to the Great Commission, as Christian globalists claim. Trump is not proposing Berlin style walls to keep us in. As he often mentions, they will have beautiful doors.
What is more, we are commanded to go to the nations, not lure them to us! Go and make disciples and, if you can’t go, send others with your financial blessing. This is our Great Commission, and walls with doors will not stand in our way.
Furthermore, the Bible is extremely positive about borders and walls. Walls were extant in the ancient world, and considered a blessing. Three of the good kings of Israel built walls (2Chr. 14:6, 2Chr. 27:3, 2Chr. 32:5) and Nehemiah built a wall around Jerusalem per the blessing of God. It’s also notable that walls are used often in metaphors of blessing (Ps. 51:18), while broken walls are used in metaphors of misfortune (Prov. 25:28).
But most importantly, we need to understand that God is the author of borders.
You have set all the borders of the earth… —Psa. 74:17
.
And He has made from one blood every nation of men…and the boundaries of their dwellings —Acts 17:26
(for further reading see: Should Christians build walls?)
Illegal Immigration
This brings us to, perhaps, the most devise issue in American politics, today—illegal immigration. But, there should be no division among Christians over this issue. If we believe God divided the nations, and ordained national borders and national governing authorities, we should oppose illegal immigration, and be willing to label it as such. The term undocumented immigrant is merely a euphemism affirming the globalist idea that borders do not exist. But borders do exist, and they come from God (Psa 74:17, Acts 17:26). And He has given authority over those borders to the governments He ordained (Rom. 13).
But one might ask, what about compassion? Shouldn’t we show grace and mercy to all, even illegal immigrants?
Of course, we should. Grace and mercy should characterize everything we do. That said, there is nothing compassionate, gracious or merciful about supporting the globalist agenda of open-borders. Globalism is Satan’s vehicle of choice to accelerate evil in our world. True compassion can never be inline with Satan’s agenda.
Christians should never encourage immigrants to illegally cut in line in front of other immigrants. This is not only legally wrong, it’s morally wrong. Instead, Christians should be active in encouraging immigrants to honor the nations they wish to move to by following their immigration laws.
Why The Divide?
But, if Scripture supports nationalism, why do so many Christian leaders oppose it? And if Scripture condemns globalism, why are there Christian globalists?
Good questions! I find it remarkable how many Christians, today, are speaking out against nationalism, and how few are even remotely alarmed by modern globalism. I, too, wonder how we got to such a place.
…“Did God really say, ‘You must not eat from any tree in the garden’?” — Gen. 3:1
One answer might be, the long war on Genesis 1-11. Compromised interpretations of Genesis have piled up many casualties, and unbelief in the Babel account is one of them. The title of this Biologos article says it all:
Does the Truth of Genesis 1-11 Depend on its Historical Accuracy?
The article features three Christian scholars who attempt to help Christians come to peace with the fact that the Tower of Babel and other Genesis 1-11 events may not have happened exactly as described.
In Christian understanding, regardless of whether the events of the primeval history happened or not (or happened in the ways they are described), Gen 1-11 ultimately points us toward the Christ in which Christians are rooted together and the person whom they are called to emulate.
Did God really separate the nations and establish their borders? Did He really break up man’s globalist endeavors at Babel? Depends on which “Christian scholar” you ask. Little has changed since Satan’s first deception in the Garden.
Final Thoughts
Should Christians embrace nationalism? Yes. In my humble opinion, the Church should take a firm stand on nationalism (offering their home nations prayer, honor respect and service) and an equally firm stand against globalism. If God believed globalism was so dangerous that He needed to thwart man’s efforts at Babel, perhaps we need to be more respectful of the dangers it presents today.
To sum up, I’ll leave you with this final thought. Most Bible believing churches, today, take stands on other political issues like life and marriage (I hope it’s still most). I can’t help but wonder, however, if they realize how much globalism undermines their efforts in these areas.
Think about it. If evils like slavery, abortion and genocide exist in a divided world, imagine what might prevail in a united world? As God said, “nothing that they propose to do will be withheld from them.” Do we really believe we’ll prevail in these other areas, if we forfeit our national sovereignty to the world? Do we really believe the world will fight with us on these issues? Not even the most hardened critic of nationalism would affirm something so foolish.
Further Reading
Should Christians Build Walls?
World Net Daily
Should a Christian be opposed to globalization?
gotquestions.org
Is Globalism Actually Demonic?
World Net Daily
How should a Christian respond to illegal aliens/illegal immigrants?
gotquestions.org
What does the Bible say about illegal immigration?
gotquestions.org
What is the Evidence for the Tower of Babel?
Is Genesis History?
Was the Dispersion at Babel a Real Event?
Answers in Genesis
A Nation of Immigrants — Only If They Assimilate
Denis Prager
How Should Christians Vote? A Question Of Origins
Talk Genesis
Footnotes
- “American first or Christian first? Why supporting Trump’s vision for the nation compromises our biblical mandate” (https://baptistnews.com/article/american-first-or-christian-first-why-supporting-trumps-vision-for-the-nation-compromises-our-biblical-mandate/#.WQzywhiZNp8)
- Pangea is the supercontinent many scientists believe existed before continental drift separated the continents into the 7 we have today. Most creationists believe the continents were rapidly separated at the time of the Flood, just a few thousand years ago. They believe the antediluvians (our pre-flood ancestors) lived on the Pangea.
- “Should a Christian be opposed to globalization?” (https://www.gotquestions.org/Christian-globalization.html)
- “Why Conservative Christians Must Be “Globalists” (http://freedomcrossroads.com/2016/08/15/why-conservative-christians-must-be-globalists/)
Do you think you are making a leap in logic toward assuming that nationalism is a Biblical ideal? As in mandated by God: as a general moral principle. I believe that you misunderstand the point of the Babel narrative as it fits into the larger context: The context of specific disobedience to the Noahic mandate. Also you must examine the historical context of Ancient pagan worship practices of “going up”. There is much in this narrative which speaks to an ancient Israelites mind during the time of the Judges when such pagan practices of “Going up” to manipulate a god’s favor were common among Israels neighbors. This cultural context is lost without analyzing as much as possible from that perspective and alas the narrative as a whole.
I hear you saying by extracting from God’s actions in the Biblical narrative of Babel and it’s context you are proposing an additional moral principle to add to those which were directly and explicitly stated by God? I believe using the same hermeneutics you have employed here one could extrapolate a whole host of new laws, some which may be contrary to one another. I think using the narrative of 1 Samuel Chapter 1 you could propose Gods disfavor of monarchy’s. This is a hypothetical to show a point not the thesis of my argument. Without Biblical context and knowledge of the audience who first received this narrative as well as the purpose for which it was originally written I believe much that is to be said is merely conjecture. Again I think we can agree that it is “possible” that “God abhors Globalism on a moral level”, but the evidence to suggest this thesis is necessary or even certain is very weak and employs a shaky hermeneutic which is dangerous and borders on heresy when applied to other areas of scripture.
My thesis is this: ALL human institutions are equally corrupt because of the fall. I believe this because history has shown the failure of every system of human organization to to bridge the gulf that exists between God and man. No nation or power beyond that of Christ will. I believe that the Bible through its narrative style depicts this message quite poignantly. That is the perspective from which Paul speaks in Roman 13. He is not proposing a Globalized or even a nationalized system of economics and governance or even that such a system is necessary. He is also not proposing that Christians should blindly follow the laws of the the lands in which they live or are citizens. He is pointing out that Christians should respect the laws of the land they are in insofar as they adhere to what God has revealed in his will and seems necessary in terms of the Laws. it is quite a stretch in logic to say he is proposing high regard for nationalism, or globalism. He is speaking into a particular audience of Romans in which issues of open rebellion and political subversion was being at the very least discussed amoung its members. In Paul’s view it is a stronger argument to say it matters not who is Caesar, king, president, sheriff… Etc. Christians are citizens of something else and are compelled by it’s King to honor and follow a different set of laws. In fact it is this first citizenship in the kingdom of God, which puts all its people at odds with earthly powers who seek after earthly securities and treasures. “Who’s face is on the coin?” as our Lord rehetoricizes seems to strongly imply we should turn our attentions wholly on being citizens of His Kingdom and pay little mind toward political, governmental, economic, power struggles. Pay your taxes because the money you make belongs to “Caesar”. Money is merely a tool for God’s will just like every human institution painted or printed on its surface.
My Essential Question: Taking into the account the Actual Context of the Babel narrative as a story which recounts mans failure to follow the Noahic Covenant, and also the originally intended audience of ancient Israel during the time of the Judges, What is the Necessary or Certain Biblical Evidence to support the idea that God hates Globalism particularly and more importantly thinks Nationalism, as we understand these two ideas today, is a Moral Ideal for a “good society”? Or at the very least that God thinks that Christians should support nationalism as we understand it today?
I think picking out the specific unity quality of the Babel state as implying a Godly condemnation of that oneness as a general moral principle is a step to far. Going further, Gods judgments are frequently a source of suffering, not an implicit moral principle (See Exile and Captivity 2 Kings). It is a specific failure within that culture which God chose to intervene via a cataclysmic event which causes chaos in the world. (see Flood Narrative) Check out the Bible Project.com for some compelling videos on the Narrative of the book of Genesis.
You are correct in that my comments seemed to digress off the topic at hand in my previous comments so I will leave side inquiries alone.
I believe you may have misunderstood my point about Israel on whether or not I was condoning or admonishing their immigration policies… Not sure where you got that. I was merely attempting to paint the historical Context of Babel at the time it was written
My concern (and I believe yours in this article) is not on the legitimacy or precariousness of how the United States Government or truly any political entity enacts it specific immigration policies. I believe that this is, while related, beside the point of this article.
Part of the problem with your article is in its definitions.
You need to establish what “Nationalism” and “Globalism” actually are in a Biblical context, Then compare that to what seems to be the contemporary understanding of these ideals. Perhaps you may find that the word choice being lent here may not accurately reflect a Biblical moral norm and your position. Perhaps you may find that the term might in many circles understanding of the words may lead such circles of people to misunderstand you and think you stand for something else. Perhaps you may consider the impact this has on your witness to the name of Christ.
The Scope of your article needs to focus. How is “Nationalism” as we understand it from our modern context proven to be absolutely a Biblicaly based ideal society. Without carefully examining the Biblical context and audience of both you will ultimately fail even to prove possibility in this matter.
Then if you manage to prove at least necessity that “Nationalism” as we understand it today is a Biblical supported moral ideal (also that Globalism is evil)
Then you can address the questions: If “Nationalism” is respecting the laws of the land you are in insofar as they do not interfere with your call to follow Christ, then how do Christians who lawfully protest the policy of its country from their conviction that such policies and ideals are immoral violate a “Nationalistic” ideal? or If “Nationalism” is akin to an isolationist policy toward foreign engagement and immigration then how do Christians who lawfully protest the policy of its country from their conviction that such policies and ideals are immoral violate a “Nationalistic” ideal?
Cheers,
I hope this helps
No, I do not believe I am making a leap, nor assuming anything. I’m open to critique. But I do believe the Babel account and Paul’s teaching on government render globalism an unbiblical, dangerous idea, and conversely affirm the importance of nationalism as I define it in the article. I did define my terms and make a biblical case. To the extent I fell short articulating the position, is up to the individual reader to decide.
And I acknowledge both the diaspora mandate, as well as the division of the nations as central to the Babel account. Both are drawn from the immediate context. They are not mutually exclusive.
And I now understand the other context to which you refer. On this, I’ll offer you some thoughts and critiques to consider.
Regarding the “context of Ancient pagan worship practices,” this is a slippery slope. As you perhaps know, Israel and its neighbors were not yet in existence at the time of the Babel event. The Israelites read about Babel just as we have. It was history to them, just as it is history to you and I. All of the Genesis events took place before Moses was born and before the nation of Israel was established. The Babel diaspora likely took place 600 years before Moses wrote Genesis. Think about that. The Revolutionary war seems ancient history to me and that was only a little over 200 years ago. The Babel account to Moses was akin to discovery of the Americas by Columbus to us, and even a little older than that. And you’re talking about going all the way forward to the Judges, another 70 to 400 years, for context. This is a mistake.
Moses was a contemporary writer in regard to most of the Torah, but in regard to Genesis he was strictly an historian. He did not live through Babel and would not have interviewed contemporary witnesses influenced by the paganism of his day. He would have had to draw from historical records which would not have been mired in the thinking of his day (let alone the Judges’ day). The beliefs of his contemporary pagan neighbors are completely irrelevant.
Many non-concordists (Walton, Lamoureux, etc.) accuse biblical creationists of importing modern ideas into the Genesis accounts, but the truth is, they are importing later pagan ideas into them. I touch on this a little in my article: Does Genesis teach solid-dome cosmology?
It’s also interesting that Shem was alive during the Babel events and may have actually authored the source material Moses used to write the Babel account. I touch on this in my article: The Origins of Genesis: Solving the Toledoth Mystery. It is interesting that Shem’s toledoth statement occurs immediately after the Babel account. “These are the records of the generations of Shem.” (Gen. 11:10a) (Literally: These [are] the accounts of Shem.) And Shem lived 100 years in the antediluvian world! If he was Moses’ source, he was very much removed from the context of Ancient pagan worship practices of which you speak.
When it comes to Genesis, we are safest when we stick with the context of the Text itself. We would also be wise to interpret the rest of the Torah in the context of Genesis, rather than context of its pagan neighbors. Genesis is the historical foundation of the rest of the Torah and the rest of the Bible. God has given us everything we need in Scripture. It is sufficient (2 Tim. 3:15-17).
So, we agree, context is key. I just believe the ancient pagan beliefs of Israel’s neighbors is a false context.
Regarding your comments on putting the Kingdom of God first, I wholehearted agree. I addressed this in the article. I affirmed country first is only in regard to other countries. That’s all Christian nationalism in America has ever been. Per our national pledge, we are “one nation under God.” This is why I defend American Christian patriots against the false charge of idolatry. Paul was not guilty of idolatry merely because he affirmed his national citizenship and honored his country. Obedience to Paul’s command of taxes, customs, fear and honor is obedience to God. And obedience to God is an affirmation of our citizenship in his Kingdom.
It’s also obedience to Jesus’ command, “Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s.” We are not doing that if we trash our country or advocate rebellion against its laws. We are certainly mandated to rebel when our country asks you to sin. But affirming our national citizenship, in and of itself, is not sin. Nor is it sin to offer our nation respect and honor. In fact, the refusal to do so is sin.
Perhaps your main objection to the nationalism I’m espousing is that sometimes to you need to choose God over country. Sometimes, we have to disobey laws when they are contrary to God’s laws. We have no disagreement on this. Those situations will pop up. Thankfully our country has a long tradition of religious freedom, but this has been tested at times.
You assume much on the mind of God that is not explicitly stated. “Filling the Earth” Does not imply a preference NECESSARILY to your definition of nationalism. It NECESSARILY implies Gods wanting man to spread out. I’ll admit personally A singular Globalized government seems like a bad idea just like any attempt to industrialize and mechanize humanity has been. Globalism in context according to your Merriam Webster and dictionary.com definitions are akin to a global form of utilitarianism: an ethical theory which has its merits and flaws but does not represent the loaded definition in use of our contemporary society. Similarly the “nationalism” term has much that is lost in contextualized understanding of our modern day that your definitions do not account for. I’ll address this later. For now I’ll simply say that your modern definition of nationalism says nothing of obedience to a nations laws and customs. A view which is quite at odds with its contemporary use and Patriotism (Which requires rebellion when necessary).
I think you and I have two very different understanding of Scriptural use. I would allege that the “time of the Judges” as I have put it is marked at its beginnings of the Israelite conquests starting with Joshua as the first “Judge”.
The Pentateuch is a Unique type of document which is reflective of other types of documents of its day which blend many literary styles. In that sense The Genesis account is “literally” the Word of God. Certain parts are poetic, rhetorical, figurative in their expressions, and contextualized toward their intended audience; using phraseology and euphemisms which would have been common understanding in its date of communication.
Assuming a hypothetical textual tradition existed between Babel and Moses, Moses would HAVE TO contextualize the events to make them relevant to its recipient given their distance in space, culture, and time. To assume that Moses had knowledge of the historicity of his document or its future use beyond the context of his Original intended audience (The Isrealites somewhere between Captivity and entering Canaan which immediately precipitated the time of the Judges) is while fantastic, improbable, and at this present moment without beyond hypothetical evidence to assert this as Biblical truth is conjecture at best.
Some Christians often find it necessary to defend this Idealized “literal Historical” vision for scripture which in my opinion: 1) Distracts from the message of scripture (Christ). 2) Presents a weak not quite sovereign or omnipotent view of God who couldn’t possibly work through scripture that isn’t 100% a Historical Document (which if it is 100% historical document, it is a very poor one). 3) Approaches scripture arrogantly to prove that which you already believe, instead of allowing the scriptures to minister to your heart and bend us more toward Gods will. 4) is a sign of open rebellion.
As for your article. What is YOUR intended audience and purpose. Assuming you understand your context and culture in which you are presenting this article: It seems you are attempting to defend and legitimize a particular cultural sphere. You create ambiguity around your terminology to achieve this. “Nationalism” as the term is being used today in popular culture does not mean merely, “spirit or aspirations common to the whole of a nation. devotion and loyalty to one’s own country; patriotism”. “Nationalism” implies cultural isolationism, protectionism, and has been linked in modern understanding with ethnocentric and often racist ideologies and your flirtation with its use as being legitimized by scripture is abominably dangerous. In fact if you look at use of the word nationalism as it has been used in Historical context, especially in the 20th century, you will see the common understanding that “Nationalism” is a buzz word which carries far more in its connotation that its strictest definition implies. And here is the kicker. Nationalism as you have defined it is not NECESSARILY contrary to GLOBALISM as you have defined it. These two terms are not each others mutually exclusive opposite contrary to how they have been presented in popular culture today.(https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/2017-07-10/globalism-and-nationalism) It is a false dichotomy. And one which is propagated by popular culture. You largely fail to acknowledge this confusion of terms in your article and it does not serve you well. In fact, it serves only to bolster the belief that you are proposing that Christians (your intended audience) should be protectionist, isolationist, xenophobic, and racist. Not only that but that such ANTI-CHRISTian (emphasis intentional) beliefs are Biblically based. This is in direct contradiction to the Gospel and I encourage you to walk back this uncareful methodology as it muddles your Christian witness.
WHO is CHRIST? Stop getting distracted and focus on emulating Him? What do you hope to achieve? Is it to propel the Christian Witness to the World? Is it to minister and create healing? Is it to Legitimize a biblical basis for fear and rejection of our Christian Calling and foster the radicalization of Christians in a political sphere? I URGE YOU TO HUMBLY CLARIFY here and elsewhere because what you actually achieve here may not be what you hoped. Or maybe… You did.
Well, you’ve now crossed that line and essentially called me a racist.
I can tell you I’m not. In a twist of irony, I’m married to a non-white immigrant (who BTW, is a patriot and nationalist). I’ve adopted 4 children, including an African-American child. I have a biological child who would be considered ‘mixed race.’ I am a Christian, Bible believing, patriotic nationalist. I’m afraid I’ve completely exploded your race card attempt. I hate all racism and race baiting. Both are equally wicked.
And I do not define nationalist as protectionist, isolationist, xenophobic nor racist. These are your definitions, not mine. You are drawing a conclusion from your own premise–the most basic of fallacies.
And there’s another irony. A literal historical reading of Genesis destroys any basis for racism. It affirms we are one race and come from one man.
A non-literal reading leaves it open for debate. And that’s where our real disagreement is. You said,
We disagree on many things, but this is the core issue. In my article, I speculated that resistance to nationalism might be a symptom of resistance to the historicity of Babel. Your testimony supports this hypothesis.
You opine that trusting the history of Scripture distracts from the message of Scripture, and impugns the character of God. You say it brings into doubt the sovereignty of God. In your view, disbelief in the historicity of the Bible is allowing Scripture to minister to your heart. And you characterize belief in the historicity of Scripture as arrogant and “open rebellion.” Did I leave anything out?
Our core disagreement is not about nationalism, globalism or anything of that nature. We have a different authority and think from a different foundation. Paul spoke of a war brewing against the knowledge of God.
When we relegate Scripture to unreliable history, that war is lost. You asked,
I would put the question to you. Who is Christ? Is he the Christ of the Old Testament as well as the New? Is he God, very God who spoke the universe into existence? Is he man very man, with a lineage that goes all the way back to Adam? (Luke 3:23-38) That is the Christ I believe in.
The history of Genesis reveals to us why Christ came, and why we need him. It is the foundation of the Cross. The good news of the Gospel is only understood in light of the bad news of the Fall. The literal life, crucifixion, and death of the last Adam (Christ) was made necessary by the literal life, fall and curse of the first Adam.
You also said,
Yes, indeed, Moses “contextualized” the Babel account and made it relevant. He did this by providing the history that lead up to Babel. The Creation, Fall and Flood are the historical context of Babel. The Sodom account afterward also supplies context. The histories of Genesis are the context for the rest of the Torah, Old Testament and New Testament. God has provided all the context we need. It is thorough and infallible.
But that’s not the context on which you rely. You rely on the context of ancient false pagan beliefs. And you draw your knowledge of these beliefs from the writings of fallible historians! Do you not see the irony in this?
I liken this approach to the philosophers Paul engaged at Mars Hill (Acts 17). These were men who reasoned within the context of human wisdom and philosophy. But Paul did not accept their context. He knew it was a false context, and therefore, replaced it with the true context of history—-the history of Genesis. The Greeks had lost their history, and had only fantastical myths and legends in its place. They tried in vain to reason their way to truth, but to no avail. Paul proceeded to explain to them the true historical context of the Cross. Many walked away, rejecting that history. And many believed!
I’ve said it before, I’ll say it again. Context is key. But that context is the infallible history which God provided.
You also asked,
The purpose of this article, and my blog, is very simple. Proclaim the blessing of God’s Word to the best of my ability. Nationalism is in the spotlight, once again, and many Christians are wondering what to think of it. I’m attempting to put it into the context of true Biblical history. Simple as that.
Grace and peace
I believe you are fundamentally mistaken about the message of Scripture highlighting an explicit command by God to divide into national identities. God has always worked within the context of human institutions but has only once shown such favoritism toward a national identity. And the failures of that nation to obey His actual commands to take care of the “alien within your gates”, rid themselves of idolotry, and to “care for the poor, the widows, and orphans…” Led to their loss of that favor.
The sin of Babel was a response to man’s open rebellion towards another command: “to fill the Earth and multiply on it.” I suggest that you should read the Babel text within the context of the Noahic covenant given just before. Here you confuse modality of possibility with necessity and perhaps even certainty. Is it possible God wanted humanity to be divided nationally because globalism is evil? Yes. However this is not a necessary truth and should be treated with scepticism. In fact there is greater biblical evidence to support the idea that God will use whatever and whoever to achieve his will.
We as Christians commit the sin of idolotry when we make ourselves slaves to the law. We make ourselves blasphemers when we try to make Scripture say something it clearly does not. We do this to excuse the evil right within our hearts. To “make a name for ourselves”. To “do what is right in our own eyes”. To consolidate power around ourselves. “Seek first the kingdom of God and his righteousness…” Any nation is a contractual agreement Frome do by the consent of the people. It reflects their will. We are not a Christian nation because we openly justify rebellion as individuals and as a nation. We openly mock to misfortune of others, we gaslight the downtrodden and ignore their plight. We have no compassion. We have to love for our neighbor. We have no love for God. I say this in the face of the ” Evangelical” “conservative” “Christian” Americans who’s abbarant hypocrisy deligitamizes their witness in the secular world. Christians should feel shamed by the secular #metoo movement being a secular movement. Too long we have ingnored this sin and at times flagrantly defended to oppression, objectification, diminutization, disempowerment, and abuse toward our women and Knowing our God above we should be wary of his righteous judgement and staff of correction, a Babylon to carry us into exile. To remove our promises and bend us to his will.
We as followers of Christ must own that the 60 million abortions is as much our own sin of contempt toward those who are in need. Instead of protesting to what extent have we gone to ensure the protection of a human life. Have we adopted a child destined for abortion, have we helped those who face rejection from there families or careers. Have we sponsored a kid who made a mistake to ensure that they can finish highschool. Have we offered to watch their kids so they can study for a History test. No we have not. We reject the prompting of the holy Spirit and do not form relationships with those in need. We sacrifice only when it is convenient. Their sin is our sin. We are not the light of the world. We are itS self righteous and vocal bigots. We are in the world and very much of it’s uncaring and selfish mediocrity. Just like Babel.
Hi Aaron. Thanks for taking the time to read this article and comment. I’d like to offer you a few thoughts in response.
Paul’s comments about taxes, customs, fear and honor were not in regard to Israel, but our homelands. In Paul’s case it was Rome. God’s favoritism to Israel is a non sequitur. The fact that God favored Israel does not mean Paul should not have embraced his citizenship with Rome. Paul was a Roman citizen and affirmed his citizenship many times. He put Rome before other nations in regard to taxes, customs, fear and honor. It was his duty before God. And he did this knowing Rome had many moral issues, particularly slavery. But he understood the good that comes from the system of nations and authorities that God put in place. He was not endorsing Rome’s sins or the way Rome came to be. No nation has a sinless past, nor a sinless beginning. But he understood God’s ordination of nations and governments.
Thus, it stands to reason, if Paul could honor Rome with all its sins and history, you and I can honor America. That doesn’t mean we endorse the sin of abortion. On the contrary, we honor our country by urging it in the right direction. The abolitionists movement was a country-honoring movement. So was the civil rights movement. So is the life movement.
Israel was God’s son, in that Israel was his specific creation. It’s the only nation he specifically called into being. He loved Israel in a very special way. But that doesn’t mean you and I are to put Israel above our nation in regards to taxes, customs, fear and honor. Those are specifically for the country we reside in and, to the point we obey, we are a good testimony. We certainly can support Israel. I do. But I don’t divert my taxes nor my honor to Israel. That would go against the will of the God who fathered Israel.
Regarding Israel’s immigration policy, I think many in this country would be horrified if the US adopted their standards. Let’s take a closer look at God’s immigration policies for ancient Israel. They believed in borders. Indeed, God himself established their borders. They were to be welcoming to foreigners, as we are, but under much stricter terms. Foreigners were to follow the Mosaic law. They were required to keep the Sabbath. They were required to follow many laws. In essence, they were required to assimilate, and at the very minimum, follow the Law. If they did not, they were exiled. That’s smart immigration policy!
The idea that Christians are encouraging foreigners to break a nation’s laws is very troubling and very much against the Israel model you are touting. If we encourage law-breaking, what are we saying about our faith? What are we saying about God’s Word? What a terrible testimony of unbelief.
I’m married to an immigrant who came here legally. I love immigrants, especially the one I married. Legal, respectful immigration is the only type of immigration we should encourage.
Regarding globalism, you seem to be admitting, on the one hand, it’s evil (without question it is), but on the other, that that’s not why God divided the nations. That’s a very difficult stance, logically. But I think you’re also missing the clear immediate context of the Babel account. There is a key statement by God himself that you did not address.
You have to ask yourself, why is God focusing on their oneness? I don’t know what context you were referring to, but the immediate context implies that their oneness was a problem and that God solved that problem by ending their oneness. This is a key aspect of the context that cannot be ignored. God did not merely say the sons of Noah weren’t traveling far enough, fast enough, etc. He specifically spoke of their unity and the problem with their unity, and the solution of dividing them. I think it’s a very dangerous prospect, therefore, to try to undo what He did at Babel.
Your other comments about the metoo movement are beyond the scope of this article, and not directly impacted the arguments in this article. But briefly, I’m personally happy so many abusers are now being exposed. There were some really bad guys getting away with a lot. I stand strongly for putting women on a pedestal as God’s most beautiful creation. Nothing about nationalism suggests otherwise.
I would also add, the metoo movement is not perfect, as many former Bill Clinton supporters are leading the movement. Hillary for one. Until all former Clinton supporters are purged from the movement, and until it embraces his assault victims (Juanita Broaddrick, Paula Jones, Kathleen Willey, etc.) it will struggle for credibility. I think it could be a more effective movement if it were not for the current leadership. But any celeb or media personality embracing metoo, that also embraced Bill Clinton, should be dismissed. At the very minimum, they should renounce their former support for Clinton and start supporting his victims. And those who actually abused them during the Clinton years (Clinton, Carvel, media personalities) should be forever disqualified. That could possibly give the movement some credibility. Perhaps we agree on that.
Lastly, regarding abortion, I’ve personally adopted 4 children. Am I, therefore, qualified to speak out? That said, I would never accuse anyone who has not adopted as being unqualified to speak out against abortion. It’s a frivolous charge. How can I condemn those not adopting, rather than those advocating murder? It’s unthinkable. Would you scold those who opposed Hitler if they did not personally house Jews? I believe all Christians are allowed to fight abortion, whether they have natural children, adopted children or no children. I’m much more critical of the position you take, that undermines the fight.
Just some thoughts.
I appreciate the attempt to bring some balance to this anti-globalism piece. It does not reek of racism and me-first application as much nationalism does.
However, it’s arguments are speculative and include questionable biblical interpretations ( though it is honest enough to label some of them as “speculative.”).. Natonalism and globalism are both OK and both bad depending on how they are understood and how applied. The United States (like Brazil and many other nations) really are not nations in the sense this article portrays. We are amalgams of many nations. In fact we USA citizens are occupiers of territory taken from the nations who were here before us. (called Indians). We also forcibly imported people from African nations to be our slaves.
Whenever ones “principles,” (religious or otherwise) turn out to be self-serving, or exploitative of others (as much US nationalism does) it is wrong on its face, regardless of how much it distorts Scripture to justify itself
It does not take a theologian to discern self-evident moral truths. Jesus said, “WHY DON’T YOU DECIDE FOR YOURSELVES WHAT IS RIGHT?” (Luke 12:57)
Thanks for the response. I realize the world today is not identical to the divisions made at Babel. Empires like Rome came into existence and expanded, gobbling up other nations. Things certainly had changed by the time Paul penned Romans. Even the various Native American nations warred with one another for perhaps thousands of years, displacing one another many times, long before the Europeans arrived. It’s the nature of sinful people, and no peoples are exempt.
The point of the article is not to justify the sins of the various nations. The point is to expound biblical truth, namely that God separated the world into multiple nations and, through Paul, charged us to respect and honor the governing authorities of our various lands. Put simply, God separated the nations and commanded nationalism.
And Paul penned Romans 13 as a Roman citizen! Think about that. If there was ever a nation that deserved scrutiny, it was ancient Rome. Yet Paul proclaimed himself a Roman citizens many times, and commanded all Christians in Rome to honor their governing authority.
If you’re concerned about your nation pray for it and its leaders. Constructive criticism is also a way to honor your country, especially in America where citizens actually hold governing authority. I have deep concerns about my country. We’ve just crossed the 60 million mark in abortions. That’s 60 million murdered babies, just in the US, just since RvW. That’s 10 times the holocaust. But I’m still duty bound to honor my nation, and will do so by the grace of God.
With that said, if there’s a particular portion of my article you’d like to challenge, please feel free. You might change my mind on some things.
Another well thought article! You’d be surprised how the thought process of many “Christians” are counter to Scripture and in alignment with evil.