Thursday, July 21, 2016

The National Hubris of "American Exceptionalism" in an Election Year

This is an excerpt of a longer essay that I wrote October 6, 2011 which you can read in its entirety at http://nstolpewriting.blogspot.com/2011/10/center-for-me-and-my-world.html. I am re-posting this section as an attempt at a biblical response to the nationalistic hubris almost all candidates of all political parties and philosophies bring to the fore in every national election season. I suppose that is to be expected, but as disciples of Jesus with our supreme loyalty to Christ and His Kingdom (Wheaton College's motto), we need to think carefully and significantly differently than our fellow citizens. If you go to the trouble of reading this, I hope you will read to the end and keep in mind that I wrote it almost five years ago.



Jesus said, “Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone.” (Mark 10:18; Luke 18:19) People sometimes say to me, “you’re good” as a compliment or expression of appreciation. I may respond lightheartedly by paraphrasing Jesus, “there is only one good, and it ain’t me.” Of course, people are not thinking of divine, absolute goodness when they say, “you’re good.” When the Rich Young Ruler addressed Jesus as “Good Teacher” he was being polite and respectful and not attaching absolute, divine goodness to Jesus. Jesus, however, immediately sidesteps his question and takes the cursory greeting with great seriousness. Keeping this distinction in mind is important when we designate something “good.”

Thus, to speak of the United States of America (or any other country or human institution) as “good” immediately raises a dilemma. Is the intention to convey something casual, polite and respectful such as “good morning,” “that’s a good price” or “she is a good cook?” This casual use of “good” hardly seems adequate to lead a list of pivotal principles with “America is Good.” The closer the intention comes to conveying absolute, divine goodness, the closer the danger of blasphemy and idolatry.

I believe a more realistic and responsible linguistic and theological alternative is to say that the United States of America has received many good blessings. Beautiful land, abundant natural resources, prolonged prosperity, 200+ years of peaceful transition of political power, and a diverse wealth of people, many of whom have contributed their genius, creativity and hard work for the common good. I also believe we can rightly say that the United States of America has accomplished and contributed many good things for its own people and the people of the world. The reconstruction of former enemies Germany (not to mention the rest of Europe) and Japan after World War II is a monumental example of good that came from the United States of America.

However, an honest claiming of these goods requires an honest acknowledgement of evils that have been and continue to be part of the history and culture of the United States of America. Expecting people from the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries to have the same moral sensitivities we do in the twenty-first century is unrealistic and unfair. However, even before the American Revolution Christians of conscience such as John Woolman (1720-1772) identified and spoke out against the evils of the treatment of the native peoples of America, slavery, racial discrimination, runaway commercialism, militarism, alcohol abuse, violence, family disintegration. To acknowledge that some things have been bad does not negate what is good. Rather, it gives both an authentic perception of the good and empowers the determination to continually address and correct what is bad. To dismiss what is currently perceived as bad (recognizing that different people will have sharply contrasting views of what is good and what is bad) as un-American is disingenuous and counterproductive.

The assertion that “America is Good” as a presupposition suggests the American exceptionalism that has become a shibboleth in certain circles (Judges 12:6 – contemporary politics would probably say “litmus test”). Drawing on some Puritan writing and preaching that cast their colonial venture as a “new Israel in the wilderness” and a “shining city upon a hill,” some have argued that God intended the United States of America to be the new chosen nation after the pattern of ancient Israel.

Before responding to that concept, an honest look at ancient Israel is in order. From Joshua to Zedekiah the years of national righteousness are few. From Elijah to Malachi, the Hebrew prophets relentlessly expose the sinfulness of Israel and Judah, calling for repentance. Psalm 106 is an historical hymn of the founding of Israel starting with Moses at the Exodus through the conquest of Joshua and the days of the Judges with cry, “Both we and our ancestors have sinned.” (v. 6) If the history of the national foundations for God’s chosen people of Israel called for repentance, how much more is contemporary and historical repentance required of a nation that cannot rightfully claim God’s choosing as Israel.

Besides receiving the good blessings of God’s common grace, all nations also stand under God’s judgment. Amos 1-2 catalogues God’s judgment on the nations in a kind of spiral that narrows in on Israel and Judah. The first readers of Amos may have cheered the condemnation of their pagan neighbors until they realized that they were not exempt, and God was pronouncing judgment on them. Failure at social justice more than personal piety seems to be the basis for this judgment of the nations. This certainly fits with what Jesus said Matthew 25:31-46 (the famous “as you did it to one of the least of these who are members of my family, you did it to me” passage). The separation of the sheep and goats (v. 32) seems to be separating nations based on how they treated the hungry, thirsty, strangers, naked, sick and prisoners. Jesus makes this the distinction between those who “inherit the kingdom prepared for them from the foundation of the world” (v. 34) and those who depart into “the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels” (v. 41).

As the Babylonians closed in on Jerusalem, the people of Judah sought assurance that they were exempt from this judgment because they were God’s chosen people and God would not let the Temple be destroyed. But Jeremiah (7:4) warned “Do not trust in these deceptive words: ‘This is the temple of the Lord, the temple of the Lord, the temple of the Lord.’” If Judah was not exempt from God’s judgment, no other nation – not even the United States of America – dares think they are exempt.

God’s common grace for all humanity and God’s judgment on all nations does not mean that all societies are morally equivalent or interchangeable. A democracy that is seeking to address its deficiencies is certainly to be preferred to a dictatorship maintained by violent force and fear. To say that I would thankfully prefer to live in this country does not exempt the United States of America from acknowledging and addressing both past and present flaws. In fact, democratic government gives every individual not only opportunity but also responsibility for seeking improvement.

When God called Abraham, it was not to create a privileged God-club but to be the means by which God would bless all the families of the world (Genesis 12:2-3). Even in the choosing of Israel, God’s intent was for all of the people of the world, not an elite group. By reaching out to Samaritans, Gentiles and even representatives of the Roman oppression, Jesus repeatedly offended those who would have claimed a Jewish exceptionalism in his time. The centurion who came to Jesus in Capernaum (Matthew 8:5-13) dramatically illustrates what we would call Jesus’ global concern.

When Jesus sends the Apostles on the mission that has defined the Church for two millennia (Matthew 28:18-20; Luke 24:47; Acts 1:8) it is for all the peoples of the earth of every nation. And the vision of the culmination of history is of people of every tribe, language, people and nation gathered around the heavenly throne singing praises to Christ (Revelation 5:9; 7:9) There are no exceptional nations in God’s plan.

We who identify ourselves as disciples of Jesus, whether we live in the United States other remnants of Western Christendom, or in Sudan or Korea, Iraq or Palestine, share an allegiance to Christ that is of far greater power and importance than the social and political commonalities with share with our secular neighbors. From the martyrs of the New Testament and pre-Constantinian Church to the missionary martyrs who took the Gospel to northern Europe, Asia and Africa, to the heroes of the Reformation and the Confessing Church in Nazi Germany, the Church has celebrated the faith and courage of those whose loyalty to Christ could not be intimidated by government edicts and threats. Twenty-first century Christians in the United States of America will do well to be thankful for the freedom of religion that allows us to live an allegiance to Christ that supersedes the claims of any nation, even the United States of America.

Thursday, July 14, 2016

Lean Into the Pain




We, all of us who live in the US, have serious unresolved issues with race, violence and law enforcement. To ignore or deny them is to perpetuate them. To fix blame outside of ourselves as though someone else has a problem while we don’t only aggravates and inflames them. I am reminded of a vivid image from Howard E. Butt’s book on spiritual leadership The Velvet Covered Brick, which I have frequently used for pastoral and personal guidance. If when confronted by pain we pull back, we will not avoid it but only have to face it with greater intensity later. However, if we “lean into the pain,” we will resolve issues, grow, and be able to live with strength and joy. The events of the last couple of weeks confront us with the reality of the pain of the unresolved issues of race, violence, and law enforcement. We have a choice. Will we pull back with denial and blame, only to face the pain in greater intensity later, or will we “lean into the pain” by listening to those who see things very differently than we do with a view to understanding why reality looks so different to them than it does to us? As an older, white man, first of all, I must listen carefully to young Black folk with empathy, not criticism. Only then can I expect those who are dramatically different than I am to listen empathetically to me. I will acknowledge that my experience has brought into my life many people of diverse ethnic, cultural, religious and political perspectives. They have enriched and instructed me. I would like to hope many of them would believe I have listened to them empathetically. However, I do not hold myself up as an example for how to do this, only as one who aspires to continue to grow in my old age.

Friday, July 1, 2016

Hungry for Strong Leaders



History is clear that nothing happens in a vacuum. Every crisis and challenge was set in motion by preceding actions and outcomes. The Hebrew Prophet Habakkuk spells that out in unsettling clarity. The remaking of Europe after World War I and the Great Depression set in motion a disequilibrium that precipitated World War II. In that fear-filled chaos, people around the world clamored for strong leaders to guide them into stability. This brought together Franklin Roosevelt, Winston Churchill, Charles De Gaulle, and Joseph Stalin as well as Adolph Hitler, Benito Mussolini, Showa Hirohito, Francisco Franco, and Haile Selassie. Understanding this era requires remembering that Stalin was an ally of Roosevelt, Churchill and De Gaulle before the Cold War shuffled the deck.

The “great recession” of 2007-09 disrupted the global economy with deep uncertainties for the future. The rise of Islamist terrorism, especially with the form it has taken with the Islamic State displacing huge numbers of refugees into Europe and around the world has upset perceived international stability and the cherished identities of nations. The chaos that has so quickly ensued since the Brexit vote for Great Britain to withdraw from the European Union is disrupting international relationships in unpredictable ways. British leadership is floundering rather than leading.

As much as the west derides Vladimir Putin as a totalitarian autocrat, he is popular in Russia as the one who offers stability and the promise of restored Russian glory. The whole U.S. Presidential election process we are in (from the large number of primary candidates to the identity of the presumptive nominees) suggests the people of the United States are also longing for a strong leader to guide them through the chaos to stability and greatness.

I certainly would not suggest that the current world climate is the same as the time between the World Wars, nor would I make casual comparisons between any of the candidates and dictators from history, I do suspect that we are in a time of uncertainty in which people are hungry for strong leaders they believe they can trust to protect them against what they see as an increasingly hostile and dangerous world. Without a doubt leadership counts and is essential.


In the World War II era some of those strong leaders brought much good to the people of their own countries and the world, while others of them were evil perpetrators of unimaginable suffering. The shifting perception of Stalin from World War II to the Cold War is a cautionary tale that reminds us that danger lurks in even the most seemingly benign of human endeavors. When we humans make our decisions based on fear, we almost always make the wrong choice and pay a painful price in the long run. I’m not suggesting we reject all strong leaders. Nor am I suggesting pure goodness is even possible. But I do believe affirmative motives are more likely to help us choose the most constructive leaders in times of uncertain crisis.