Some Helpful Definitions and Distinctions

Different Strokes and Folks

Three "hot button" words these days are nationalism, globalism and patriotism.

Patriotism usually refers to the love of one's country.  It is a term which is often used in contrast to nationalism and globalism.  Patriotism is not spoken of much these days.  However, it is important to distinguish between patriotism and nationalism.  According to

These two words may have shared a distinct sense in the 19th century, but they appear to have grown apart since. Or rather, it would be more accurate to say that only nationalism has grown apart, since the meaning of patriotism has remained largely unchanged. There are still obvious areas of overlap: we define patriotism as “love for or devotion to one’s country” and nationalism in part as “loyalty and devotion to a nation.”

But the definition of nationalism also includes “exalting one nation above all others and placing primary emphasis on promotion of its culture and interests as opposed to those of other nations or supranational groups.” This exclusionary aspect is not shared by patriotism. [Merriam-Webster] 

Amongst an emerging group of politicians and nations, nationalism is bad, but globalism is good.  The idea here is that those who are globalist in their worldview purport to take into account the needs of the entire human race.  When adopting policies or pushing barrows the globalist allegedly considers the needs and aspirations of those who live in Bantustan, Manhattan, and Goa.  Or, that is the proud claim.

The claim is nonsense of course.  The globalist can never satisfy the aspirations or meet the needs of every person on the planet.  The globalist cannot promote policies which satisfy all individuals, all peoples, all ethnic groups at the same time.  So, the globalist uses the term as a smokescreen whilst he or she promote policies which are championed by the elites, the power brokers, and the monied.

President Macron of France has publicly championed globalism.  He has argued that this is what the true French patriot who loves France would do.  He is confused.  Lots of French who see themselves as patriots love France before an artificial loyalty to the whole human race.  Macron sees himself as part of a global elite trying to lead, pull, and push the whole world in certain directions--such as unrestrained borders when folk come knocking at one's door.

For the globalist, the evil bogey-man is nationalism.  The nationalist mindset has been responsible, it is said, for all kinds of wars and deprivations.

Nationalism Alive, Well, and Kicking

How the Self-Righteous Have Fallen

President Macron of France has mounted his soap box and stabbed nationalism to death.  At least that's what he thought he was doing.  He and Angela Merkel were on the "right" side of history.  The world was rejecting nationalism in favour of internationalism.  Macron insists that it was a much, much higher calling to serve the globe, not piddly little France.

The price of petrol and rising taxes were caught up in this.  Macron, driven by his global messianism, insisted that France pay a higher price for virtually everything so that money would be available to fund the current flavours-of-the-month (environmentalism, green energy, and the like).  Within a heart-beat the nation turned upon him.  So much for an object lesson for the power of nationalism.  Apparently the archaic notion that governments should serve those whom they represent was not such a fossilised relic in France after all.

Fateful Choices, Bitter Outcomes

All Shall Love Me and Despair

In 1872 Benjamin Disraeli gave a speech at the Crystal Palace.  It was a call for England to decide upon its place in the world.

England will have to decide between national and cosmopolitan principles.  The issue is not a mean one.  It is whether you will be content to be a comfortable England . . . or whether you will be a great country--an imperial country--[and] command the respect of the world.  [Quoted by Robert Tombs, in The English and Their History (New York: Alfred A Knopf, 2015), p.419.]

There are many complaints these days, particularly amongst faithful Christians, against what has come to be called American Manifest Destiny.  This pagan doctrine is actually a recrudescence of the spirit of the pagan Roman Empire.  The doctrine of American Manifest Destiny has got murky though, because it also represents a deliberate attempt to "plagiarize" the manifest destiny and glory of the Kingdom of God upon earth.  The tap root of American Manifest Destiny is the belief that the United States has a god-given role and duty to save the world from itself.

If we consider Disraeli's speech in 1872, we can see that this doctrine of over weening arrogance had modern precursors.

Diabolical Advice

Fashionable Idolatry

Patriotism is a dangerous narcotic.  So is nationalism.  As are all the fashionable causes of our day.  

C. S. Lewis’s diabolical advice in Screwtape Letters, chapter 7 (emphasis added) explains how and why:

Let him begin by treating the Patriotism or the Pacifism as a part of his religion.
Then let him, under the influence of partisan spirit, come to regard it as the most important part.

Then quietly and gradually nurse him on to the stage at which the religion becomes merely part of the “cause”, in which Christianity is valued chiefly because of the excellent arguments it can produce in favour of the British war-effort or of Pacifism.

The attitude which you want to guard against is that in which temporal affairs are treated primarily as material for obedience.

Once you have made the World an end, and faith a means, you have almost won your man, and it makes very little difference what kind of worldly end he is pursuing.

Provided that meetings, pamphlets, policies, movements, causes, and crusades, matter more to him than prayers and sacraments and charity, he is ours—and the more “religious” (on those terms) the more securely ours. I could show you a pretty cageful down here.

Justin Taylor
HT: Warren Throckmorten

Shepherds, Bears, and Russia

Vlad Impales the Orphans

One of the images used in Scripture for the state is that of a shepherd.  Far from being a shepherd, the modern secular state is like a wolf that preys upon the sheep.  It has determined that some sheep need fleecing and shearing.  Others will be favoured and will receive the proceeds of the fleecing and the shearing.  The modern secular state divides the flock and sets sheep against sheep. 

When the Bible uses the image of a shepherd for the state it has particular reference to the enemies of the flock who would prey upon it.  The good shepherd defends the flock and protects it from those who would tear it to pieces.  Thus David, when contemplating the threat of Goliath to Israel, reflected upon his skill and faithfulness as a shepherd: he killed the lion and the bear that came up to devour the sheep. 

The more a government turns upon its own people, the more odious and disgusting it becomes.  We have recently witnessed one of the more egregious acts against innocent sheep.

Empty Chair and Tables in the House of the Lord

Baalism, Britain, and the Cult of the Holy Nation

When once-Christian cultures turn away from the God of our fathers usually a substitute deity occupies the vacuum.  This new god is supposed to function as the Living God had in the culture of former generations.  People need to believe in something or someone--particularly when former generations professed a living faith in the true God.

The experience of our ancient fathers has been an apt teacher.  When the northern kingdom split away from Judea at the passing of King Solomon the northern king deliberately sought to set up a false cult to fill the vacuum created, by throwing off loyalty to God.  Baal was the choice.  Baal was an idol of power, ministered and institutionalised and made visible through the State.

Similarly in our post-Christian, post-modern world, amidst all the nihilism and dissolution there is one authority, one locus of unity to which the people have repeatedly and persistently turned
--Baal, the god and religion of the state.

Blessing or Curse?

Patriotism and Ungodliness

Samuel Johnson once famously proclaimed, "patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel".  He had a point.  For the Christian patriotism ought always be written in lower case.  There is a form of patriotism which honours God.  There is also a patriotism which is a cursed idolatry and angers the Almighty.  How can we distinguish? 

Love of one's country always must be a subset of one's love for God, for His creation, and for His providential care and provision of His image bearers and other creatures.  We love our parents because it is commanded by God Himself: they have provided for us, protected us, and taken care of us.  Consequently we return love and affection and care for them, even in difficult times, out of love for God. 

Love of nation is similar.

Douglas Wilson's Letter From America

Pick-Up Trucks With American Flags on Them

Mere Christendom
Written by Douglas Wilson
Monday, July 04, 2011 8:01 am

Most people only know half of Stephen Decatur's famous toast -- "my country, right or wrong." But the whole thing was much more admirable. "My country, may she always be right. But my country, right or wrong." The abbreviated version makes it sound like national interest is the only standard that a full-tilt patriot would ever recognize. The full version recognizes that there is a standard of right and wrong that far transcends national interest. One of those transcendent standards, incidently, is what undergirds the necessity of a connected loyalty to other sinners -- the second part of the toast.

In a fallen world, such loyalties are obviously not absolute.

One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church

Jingoism and the Gospel

Regular readers of ContraCelsum will know that we have been a frequent critic of the idolatry of American nationalism--the notion that the United States is especially called by the Living God to bring His Kingdom to pass in the world.  This doctrine--albeit now deeply secularized--is that the root of  what is called American "Exceptionalism".

Now there are many things about the United States that we are particularly thankful for to God, just as there are in our own nation (New Zealand).  We have travelled reasonably extensively in the world, and wherever we go, we find things which lead us to wonder and marvel at God's goodness as manifested in particular nations and cultures.  But when any of those good gifts of our Lord become objects of veneration and nationalistic pride, the anger of the Almighty is kindled.  He is a jealous God.  He will not share His glory with another.

Many churches in the United States have got swept up with the national idolatry.  Kevin DeYoung, writing on the occasion of Memorial Day, speaks to the heart of the matter.

Douglas Wilson's Letter From America

Nobody Names Their Kid Jeshurun Anymore

Written by Douglas Wilson
March 2, 2010
First published in Blog and Mablog

I have been a subscriber to National Review since I was a junior in high school or thereabouts, and so that means I have been reading those guys for around 40 years. I think this should give me the right to say something. Well, first, I should say thanks. I owe them all a great deal.

Having said that, let me move on to the cover story in the current edition, a piece called Defend Her: Obama's Threat to American Exceptionalism, written by Rich Lowry and Ramesh Ponnuru.

First, let me set the pieces on the board. American conservatism is not Toryism, fighting to protect long-established aristocratic privileges. This leads to an obvious question.

"What do we, as American conservatives, want to conserve? The answer is simple: the pillars of American exceptionalism. Our nation has always been exceptional. It is freer, more individualistic, more democratic, and more open and dynamic than any other nation on earth."

And we begin to get gummed up almost immediately. Many of the things that Lowry and Ponnuru point out about the American personality are quite true (at least for the present), and on that level, I found myself agreeing with most of the article. But this language of exceptionalism grates -- let us call it our American grateness.

Our nation is still freer (for the most part) than most other nations in the world. True enough. But not all. The 2010 Index of Economic Freedom puts us at #8, right after Canada. That's not even in the medal round. We did better in hockey than we are doing in freedom. We are now ranked as "mostly free," and for those just joining us that is not a good thing. Ahead of us are Hong Kong, Singapore, Australia, New Zealand, Ireland, Switzerland, and Canada. So are those nations ahead of us allowed to begin speaking of "Irish exceptionalism," or "Australian exceptionalism"? Would it grate on our ears if they started to do that? Would we suddenly see the difficulties with the expression?

On top of this, there is the small matter of history. True, we are freer now than the English are. But the Englishmen of several centuries ago were freer then than we are now. So why are we exceptional in this, and they aren't? When they are freer, better, stronger militarily, and so on, is it to be chalked up as a fluke? And when we become the hegemon the credit goes to our own wonderful selves? The language of American exceptionalism doesn't pass the smell test.

So what is the creed of American exceptionalism?

"Exact renderings of the creed differ, but the basic outlines are clear enough. The late Seymour Martin-Lipset defined it as liberty, equality (of opportunity and respect), individualism, populism, and laissez-faire economics. The creed combines with other aspects of the American character -- especially our religiousness and our willingness to defend ourselves by force -- to form the core of American exceptionalism."

In their description of the American personality, I certainly recognize a lot of my own reactions and impulses in there. I see the same thing in my friends around me -- even those who think they have transcended the whole business.

And I also know that by objecting in the way I am, I can just be pointed to as yet another textbook example of American cussedness -- and I guess I would plead guilty. But having an ornery cussedness streak is not a creed. It is not Scripture. It is not a flaming torch to light up all those other benighted nations. It is not a gospel.

These things that we have (and we do have them) are blessings. They are gifts. Other nations have had them before we did, and they threw them away by offending Heaven, just as we are currently doing. There is nothing exceptional in this at all. Jeshurun waxed fat and kicked. Nobody names their kids Jeshurun anymore, but they sure could.

"The retreat from American exceptionalism" led by Obama (and lots of other Americans) is one that Lowry and Ponnuru lament, and are trying to stand against. I wish them well, but they really have misdiagnosed the problem from top to bottom. We will not be saved by our American "religiousness." Religiousness didn't bleed and die for us, and religiousness was not raised from the dead on the third day. Religiousness can go to blazes where it belongs.

The article concludes with this:

"But Americans are right not to want to become exceptional only in the 230-year path we took to reach the same lackluster destination as everyone else."

Sir John Glubb once wrote a small booklet called The Fate of Empires, and I referred to his review of western history in my recent book Five Cities That Ruled the World.

"Cities, like the men and women who live in them, have life spans, and that life span is approximately 250 years. John Glubb pointed to this seemingly obvious truth, but one that is still routinely missed: 'Any regime which attains great wealth and power seems with remarkable regularity to decay and fall apart in some ten generations'" (p. xviii).

Whatever you might want to say about it, it is not an exceptional achievement to die right when your insurance company predicted you would.

Douglas Wilson's Letter From America

Americanitas

Written by Douglas Wilson
Wednesday, February 24, 2010

There are a number of things that are circulated on the foxnewsright that do to my soul what an Athens full of idols did to the apostle Paul. One of the central ones, as readers of this space well know, is that I think there is enough sadness in the world without Republicans going around talking about American exceptionalism. The most recent sampling of a near cousin to this kind of thing was a comment by Jeb Bush when he said that Obama's policies were "not American." Obama's policies are idiotic, sure, but last time I checked, we weren't having to import any of that. We generate enough in a month or two -- just in my part of the country -- to keep New York lit up for a couple years.

There was an old ethos, that of Americanitas, that was a real part of the first Christendom, and those who held it knew that one's nationality should no more be a basis for praise or blame than the possession of ten toes should be. But Americanism, a false religion designed to appeal to people who are not especially clever, has banished this older Christian confession in its peculiar American form. In other words, faithful Americanitas was chased to the border, largely by Americans. Not by Russians, not by Chinese, nor by any other furriners.

If you see folks talking about these things on the teevee, or you read what they write about it, and they all seem extremely clever, please remember that nobody seems to understand that you can't float between Heaven and Hell unless you know how to fly. And if you can't fly there is only one way to go, and that is where we are going, at an approximate rate of 9.8m/s2. Satan, Chesterton observed, fell by the force of gravity.

So however earnest they may be in their opposition to Obamaman, whenever somebody trots out this exceptionalism business, thinking Christians need to fall upon that claim with merry shouts. However sound they may be on how a health care system should work, any given advocate of this bizarre doctrine of exceptionalism seems to me to be, in the immortal words of Wodehouse, "nature's final word on cloth-headed guffins."

This exceptionalism talk really needs to expire with a low gurgle.

Doug Wilson's Letter From America

The Hubris of American Exceptionalism

Written by Douglas Wilson
Thursday, February 25, 2010

In an earlier post, I wrote about American exceptionalism with something less than enthusiasm. But this kind of point, however simple it is at the center, still needs to be nuanced around the edges. Some of this is a summary of what I have written elsewhere, so bear with me and here goes anyway.

American exceptionalism is objectionable because it is a false religion, a false faith. It is a smooth and attractive idol, and probably the idol most likely to ensnare conservative evangelicals. The apostle John's warning should be kept in mind at all times (1 John 5:21). David Gelernter has seriously suggested that we treat Americanism as one of the world's great religions. Other treatments of the subject are less adoring, but no less problematic. The problem is that Americanism is seen as a source of ideals, an artesian well of ethics, a fountainhead of standards. This is not just nonsense, it is damned nonsense. I speak metaphorically only, but purveyors of this doctrine need to be splashed around in the village pond for a bit.

To object to American exceptionalism (for I am an American objectionalist) is not to maintain that there is nothing unique about Americans or American history. It is to say that there is nothing religiously unique. We are sinners like everybody else, we need God's grace like everybody else, we are thoughtless when prosperous like everybody else, and peevish when not prosperous like everybody else. Take off an American's boots, and you will find ten toes. Son of a gun.

Now one of the unique things that is striking about the wisdom of our founders is that they knew this. The constitutional arrangement they made for us presupposes that we are just like everybody else. The founders did not trust Americans with the kind of power that Obama wants, the kind that Congress wants, the kind that the Supreme Court wants, the kind that the Republicans want, the kind the Democrats want, and the kind that most American voters have hitherto wanted to surrender to the aforementioned. The founders knew that Americans were good, old-fashioned me-firsters, and so they built enough booby traps in the constitutional arrangement to make it look like the beginning of an Indiana Jones movie. They did this to trip up those sneaky, grasping, mendacious Americans -- especially the kind that are tempted to run for Congress.

Reflect on what Madison said in Federalist #51.

But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.

The founders knew that we were in no way unique, and that really was unique. As long as we kept that Calvinistic humility in place, we were greatly blessed. And there is nothing wrong with acknowledging and rejoicing in that blessing. We need to return to it.

So American gratitude is something else entirely. That is not what I am shooting at when I go after exceptionalism. Acknowledgement of God's great blessing is not just okay, but is rather mandatory. But note how it works.

Beware that thou forget not the LORD thy God, in not keeping his commandments, and his judgments, and his statutes, which I command thee this day: Lest when thou hast eaten and art full, and hast built goodly houses, and dwelt therein; And when thy herds and thy flocks multiply, and thy silver and thy gold is multiplied, and all that thou hast is multiplied; Then thine heart be lifted up, and thou forget the LORD thy God, which brought thee forth out of the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage (Deuteronomy 8:11-14).

If anyone could believe in exceptionalism, and have actual verses to point to, it would have been the Hebrews. And yet note that God warns them of this pattern, which is as old as dirt. He included them. Nothing is as ordinary and boring as nationalistic hubris. Displays of this sin with the stars and stripes waving in the background are just as obnoxious and just as wicked as when anybody else does it -- and everybody else has done it. Read a book, somebody!

When you are on the top of the world and on the top of your game, you can go the Ozymandian route -- you can descend into madness like Nebuchadnezzar -- or you can pour out your thanksgiving to the God of heaven. If you choose the latter route, it is because you have recognized that you and your entire nation breathe through your nostrils. And if you want to use that breath to thank Him, you must mention His name, and you have to use the name of His Son in order for Him to hear you. Do it like they taught you in Sunday School.

Liberals are ungrateful whiners. They are ungrateful because they don't think there is anything to be grateful for. They are surrounded by unbelievable blessings, greater than any people in the history of the world have known, and they avoid the grace of gratitude by complaining about the pollution, the fact that we stole it from the Indians, the additives in the bread, and the fact that it is all propped up by CIA assassinations overseas. No need to thank anybody for the meal if you think the cook poisoned it.

Conservative exceptionalists (who conserve nothing but this most scarlet of sins) are ungrateful because they deny what the 100th psalm says -- they insist that it is "we ourselves" that set this bright and shining light on the hill. There was an old guy up there praying, but we chased him off. Said his name was Winthrop. Then we really got the fire going, for all the world to see! Bring your huddled masses yearning to be free! These so-called conservatives aren't grateful because they think they did it all themselves. No need to thank anybody for the meal if you think you're the cook.

Left and right, united in their ingratitude. One is mopey in that ingratitude, hair in his eyes, and the other is sleek and fat, with eyes like Wall Street grease, but they both share a true common bond. They do not honor God as God, and they do not give Him thanks.

Most of the outrage from the idolatrous right that was directed against the Rev. Jeremiah Wright for his "God damn America" sermon was not because of the typical leftist loopiness that caused Wright to say it, but the fact that he even had a category in his mind for saying it. But let me tell you this -- people who don't have a category in their minds for the wrath of God are prime candidates for that wrath. When the sky and oceans have fled away, and the nations are assembled before the great, white throne, will there be any fools who will be elbowing their way to the front of that great and terrified assembly? Will there be any fools on that day who have no category in their minds for the concept of judgment? A nation that slaughters over a million kids a year is a nation that really needs to stop and reflect. That reflection, if it takes a right turn, might become repentance.

So what is this sin of exceptionalism? It is here: "And thou say in thine heart, My power and the might of mine hand hath gotten me this wealth" (Deuteronomy 8:17).