Can Christians Serve Two Countries?

[AlexDTX]

Today is July 4th, which is the day the United States declared its independence from Great Britain. In my own journey of life I had gone from a rebellious pagan against my country, to a believer in Christ who was encouraged by other Christians to be a patriot for my country, to a biblical anarchist. When I was a patriot, I grimaced at the thought of Americans celebrating Cinco de Mayo (5th of May) which is the day that Mexico declared its Independence from Spain. Also, how can Mexicans emigrate to the USA to become American citizens and still honor Cinco de Mayo? But the truth is, it has been capitalized by American merchants seeking another excuse to have a sale to lure customers in to shop.

Which brings me to the point of my question. Jesus said that a man can not serve two masters. He will either hate the one and love the other, or hold to one and despise the other (Matt. 6:24). The context of his statement is either serving God or money, but as a principle it could be any two things in opposition.

I am asking this question because of another thread on the forum which declared that Jesus was an anarchist. The author of that thread did not really invite conversation, which is why, I believe, it never took off. But, as I said in the beginning of this thread, I am now a biblical anarchist, by which I do not mean I believe in rebellion to earthly governments.

Instead, I mean I have one master, my Father in heaven, who is my king and I am a subject of his kingdom. How then, could I be a patriot to an earthly government at the same time I am a patriot to my Father's kingdom? So how do you all reconcile these two things? For I do not believe that such expressions as "for God and country" are biblical. Neither do I believe that God blesses any political organization, let alone America. He blesses those that are in Christ, since it is in Christ only that all blessings flow. What do you think?

 

[Albion]

Which brings me to the point of my question. Jesus said that a man can not serve two masters. He will either hate the one and love the other, or hold to one and despise the other (Matt. 6:24). The context of his statement is either serving God or money, but as a principle it could be any two things in opposition.

I am asking this question because of another thread on the forum which declared that Jesus was an anarchist. The author of that thread did not really invite conversation, which is why, I believe, it never took off.

It never took off because everyone knew immediately that it was an unsupportable theory.

Instead, I mean I have one master, my Father in heaven, who is my king and I am a subject of his kingdom. How then, could I be a patriot to an earthly government at the same time I am a patriot to my Father's kingdom? So how do you all reconcile these two things?

The "kingdom of God" is not of this world, is how.

 

[Moral Orel]

When I was a patriot, I grimaced at the thought of Americans celebrating Cinco de Mayo (5th of May) which is the day that Mexico declared its Independence from Spain. Also, how can Mexicans emigrate to the USA to become American citizens and still honor Cinco de Mayo?

That's not what Cinco de Mayo is. It's just some holiday to celebrate some battle against the French. Their independence day is in September. Information

 

[AlexDTX]

That's not what Cinco de Mayo is. It's just some holiday to celebrate some battle against the French. Their independence day is in September. Information

Thank you for the correction, I won't repeat my mistake.

 

[AlexDTX]

It never took off because everyone knew immediately that it was an unsupportable theory.

While I agree with your point, I think there are right and wrong ways to post a thread. The wrong way is to ignore what people say, make useless statements like, "You yourself are having a public conversation with yourself...", and constantly repeat the same thing. The right way to dialogue is to make your points by starting with the other person had said, and if understanding is not achieved, approach the topic from different points of view.

But, that aside, how do you reconcile being a patriot to an earthly government with being a patriot to a heavenly government? I believe, as I said in that other thread, as ambassadors of Christ, we obey the laws of the land we are in because we are guests in a foreign government. But that does not equate to being a promoter of the government, or being a patriot. What do you think?

 

[Albion]

But, that aside, how do you reconcile being a patriot to an earthly government with being a patriot to a heavenly government?

They are not the same thing; we just use similar language when describing them. To be a "citizen" of a heavenly estate is not actually to have voting rights or anything like that, you know. It's just a reference to one's loyalty, and there's no conflict between serving God and serving one's country.

 

[AlexDTX]

They are not the same thing; we just use similar language when describing them. To be a "citizen" of a heavenly estate is not actually to have voting rights or anything like that, you know. It's just a reference to one's loyalty, and there's no conflict between serving God and serving one's country.

While I understand what you mean, I still see this as a conflict of interest. How do you reconcile Jesus telling us to not murder, turn the other cheek and not to resist violence with joining the military and invading other countries?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

While I understand what you mean, I still see this as a conflict of interest. How do you reconcile Jesus telling us to not murder, turn the other cheek and not to resist violence with joining the military and invading other countries?

Not forgetting loving your neighbor as yourself, selling your possessions and giving the money to the poor, etc.

 

[Resha Caner]

While I understand what you mean, I still see this as a conflict of interest. How do you reconcile Jesus telling us to not murder, turn the other cheek and not to resist violence with joining the military and invading other countries?

Murder is, by definition, unjustified killing. The Bible does not say it is never justified to kill, and there are examples where Israelite kings are sent on military missions by God.

The argument becomes: when (if ever) is killing justified?

I'm not at all patriotic WRT the U.S. But that doesn't necessitate anarchism, which is a ridiculous, impractical extreme that is never advocated in the Bible. In my case, what has happened is that I've taken on a more libertarian attitude. However, I've not yet reached the point where I don't laugh when the Pauls' speak.

I suspect you've got a hero view of government, e.g. the job of government is to send Rambo out to kill all the "bad guys". That's not what healthy governments do. 90% of their job is doing things like paving roads and providing clean water. Why would that conflict with faith in Christ? Did Christ speak out against clean water somewhere?

 

[Albion]

While I understand what you mean, I still see this as a conflict of interest. How do you reconcile Jesus telling us to not murder, turn the other cheek and not to resist violence with joining the military and invading other countries?

I see the point, but I think you are one step down the road from where we ought to be. We had been discussing your point that one cannot be both a citizen of his nation and also the citizen of the kingdom of God. I said that, in principle, there is no inherent conflict. THAT SAID, there may be situations that may cause some conflict, just as the Mennonites, for example, do not serve as soldiers in war.

BUT is there really a conflict--an actual impasse? No. These people are loyal to the country in every normal way except for this one matter. They give it their loyalty, pay their taxes, vote, etc. And the nation excuses them from military service, which means that they are not at odds with their nation even then.

So the fact that there are different citizenships or loyalties, does not IN ITSELF represent an impermissible conflict of loyalties.

 

[bhsmte]

Today is July 4th, which is the day the United States declared its independence from Great Britain. In my own journey of life I had gone from a rebellious pagan against my country, to a believer in Christ who was encouraged by other Christians to be a patriot for my country, to a biblical anarchist. When I was a patriot, I grimaced at the thought of Americans celebrating Cinco de Mayo (5th of May) which is the day that Mexico declared its Independence from Spain. Also, how can Mexicans emigrate to the USA to become American citizens and still honor Cinco de Mayo? But the truth is, it has been capitalized by American merchants seeking another excuse to have a sale to lure customers in to shop.

Which brings me to the point of my question. Jesus said that a man can not serve two masters. He will either hate the one and love the other, or hold to one and despise the other (Matt. 6:24). The context of his statement is either serving God or money, but as a principle it could be any two things in opposition.

I am asking this question because of another thread on the forum which declared that Jesus was an anarchist. The author of that thread did not really invite conversation, which is why, I believe, it never took off. But, as I said in the beginning of this thread, I am now a biblical anarchist, by which I do not mean I believe in rebellion to earthly governments.

Instead, I mean I have one master, my Father in heaven, who is my king and I am a subject of his kingdom. How then, could I be a patriot to an earthly government at the same time I am a patriot to my Father's kingdom? So how do you all reconcile these two things? For I do not believe that such expressions as "for God and country" are biblical. Neither do I believe that God blesses any political organization, let alone America. He blesses those that are in Christ, since it is in Christ only that all blessings flow. What do you think?

Whether you have a problem would depend on your specific faith beliefs.

If your faith beliefs are one's that would tell you to ignore laws and the rights of others in the country you live in, then that would present a problem.

 

[AlexDTX]

Murder is, by definition, unjustified killing. The Bible does not say it is never justified to kill, and there are examples where Israelite kings are sent on military missions by God.

The argument becomes: when (if ever) is killing justified?

I'm not at all patriotic WRT the U.S. But that doesn't necessitate anarchism, which is a ridiculous, impractical extreme that is never advocated in the Bible. In my case, what has happened is that I've taken on a more libertarian attitude. However, I've not yet reached the point where I don't laugh when the Pauls' speak.

I suspect you've got a hero view of government, e.g. the job of government is to send Rambo out to kill all the "bad guys". That's not what healthy governments do. 90% of their job is doing things like paving roads and providing clean water. Why would that conflict with faith in Christ? Did Christ speak out against clean water somewhere?

Thank you for your feedback, Resha. No, I do not have a hero view of government. At this point in my life, I have the opposite view. I disagree with the prevailing view that God has ordained governments. I believe that what God ordained is the right of people to organize themselves for common good. For many years I was a fan of Frederick Bastiat. I think he has most succinctly defined the roles of government in view of the rights of individuals, which means that no group of people can violate the boundaries that individuals must observe. But of late, I have leaned more in the direction of Leo Tolstoy who promoted non-resistance as the Christian view. I don't think the Old Testament is a fair example for modern governments. First, the Mosaic covenant was with a family, not a diverse group of people who organize politically. It is true that gentiles were allowed to join in that covenant, but God's covenant with Israel was for the two fold purpose of preparing the way for the Messiah to set up the permanent covenant open to all people and to show that the law magnified sin and no one could fulfill the law of God.

I also look upon the doctrine of Just Wars askance. In my studies on war, all wars are begun to plunder another people group. Therefore if you are on the receiving end, the Just War doctrine says you have the right to fight back in self defense. But as a Christian we are told that "Vengeance is mine, saith the Lord." He is our defense, which is why Jesus taught us to turn the other cheek. Furthermore, we are called as strangers and pilgrims seeking our home which is in heaven. To die is gain, meaning we go to heaven and come back with Jesus in glorified bodies that will never die again. So, I do not see the teaching of a Just War as Christian.

 

[AlexDTX]

I see the point, but I think you are one step down the road from where we ought to be. We had been discussing your point that one cannot be both a citizen of his nation and also the citizen of the kingdom of God. I said that, in principle, there is no inherent conflict. THAT SAID, there may be situations that may cause some conflict, just as the Mennonites, for example, do not serve as soldiers in war.

BUT is there really a conflict--an actual impasse? No. These people are loyal to the country in every normal way except for this one matter. They give it their loyalty, pay their taxes, vote, etc. And the nation excuses them from military service, which means that they are not at odds with their nation even then.

So the fact that there are different citizenships or loyalties, does not IN ITSELF represent an impermissible conflict of loyalties.

Albion,
Your argument is based upon your assumption that there is no conflict of interests. And I think there is a splitting of hairs going between us both. As Christians we are under the greater law of love, which is the law of our King. I have no problem with obeying laws that are good and just. Nor do I have a problem with obeying laws that are unjust, but I need to do so to stay out of the government crosshairs.

An example would be taxes. I know that taxes only pay interest on the unconstitutional central bank control of money. The government sells bonds - a promise to repay with interest - to the Federal Reserve (which is a private banking cartel with government sanction) for pieces of paper printed by the Treasury called money by government decree. Then the other private corporation, the Internal Revenue Service with government sanction, forces compliance with government backing, even though there is no law requiring compliance. I pay those taxes so I won't go to jail.

However, the heart of my question is one of idolatry. I see American Christians loving their country as being equal to loving God. "For God and country" as a phrase, makes them almost synonymous. We are called to obey God above country, if those laws are contrary to the law of God's love. This, to me, is the case of Jesus saying you can not serve two masters. So, Albion, I disagree with your assumption that there is no conflict. I agree we should avoid wars like the Mennonites, but our taxes are still paying for those wars, at least the interest on the money used for wars. We are forced to do so.

 

[Resha Caner]

I disagree with the prevailing view that God has ordained governments. I believe that what God ordained is the right of people to organize themselves for common good.

This is just semantics. It comes across as: God didn't ordain government, instead he ordained government.

And that's my point. I agree that God didn't advocate for the "nation" of Israel per the modern meaning of the word. His purposes with Israel were to prepare the way for the Christ, which indeed makes them the blessed chosen ones - just not "chosen" as many people interpret it.

But just because people abuse the idea of government doesn't mean the answer is to throw it away. I would encourage you to investigate Luther's idea of the two kingdoms if you haven't. So, we've made our cursory statements. If the discussion goes forward from here, I ask that you support your position Biblically because that is where I would expect one to draw statements such as "God doesn't ordain government". I think your view of Israel is a bit skewed. I hope you've not fallen prey to the historical minimalists.

I also look upon the doctrine of Just Wars askance. In my studies on war, all wars are begun to plunder another people group. Therefore if you are on the receiving end, the Just War doctrine says you have the right to fight back in self defense. But as a Christian we are told that "Vengeance is mine, saith the Lord." He is our defense, which is why Jesus taught us to turn the other cheek. Furthermore, we are called as strangers and pilgrims seeking our home which is in heaven. To die is gain, meaning we go to heaven and come back with Jesus in glorified bodies that will never die again. So, I do not see the teaching of a Just War as Christian.

There is a lot of "I" in this response. Did God command Joshua to conquer Canaan or did he not?

 

[bhsmte]

Albion,
Your argument is based upon your assumption that there is no conflict of interests. And I think there is a splitting of hairs going between us both. As Christians we are under the greater law of love, which is the law of our King. I have no problem with obeying laws that are good and just. Nor do I have a problem with obeying laws that are unjust, but I need to do so to stay out of the government crosshairs.

An example would be taxes. I know that taxes only pay interest on the unconstitutional central bank control of money. The government sells bonds - a promise to repay with interest - to the Federal Reserve (which is a private banking cartel with government sanction) for pieces of paper printed by the Treasury called money by government decree. Then the other private corporation, the Internal Revenue Service with government sanction, forces compliance with government backing, even though there is no law requiring compliance. I pay those taxes so I won't go to jail.

However, the heart of my question is one of idolatry. I see American Christians loving their country as being equal to loving God. "For God and country" as a phrase, makes them almost synonymous. We are called to obey God above country, if those laws are contrary to the law of God's love. This, to me, is the case of Jesus saying you can not serve two masters. So, Albion, I disagree with your assumption that there is no conflict. I agree we should avoid wars like the Mennonites, but our taxes are still paying for those wars, at least the interest on the money used for wars. We are forced to do so.

When they say; for God and country, they are not saying God is the same as their country. Notice the "and" between God and country.

 

[mmksparbud]

Thank you for your feedback, Resha. No, I do not have a hero view of government. At this point in my life, I have the opposite view. I disagree with the prevailing view that God has ordained governments. I believe that what God ordained is the right of people to organize themselves for common good. For many years I was a fan of Frederick Bastiat. I think he has most succinctly defined the roles of government in view of the rights of individuals, which means that no group of people can violate the boundaries that individuals must observe. But of late, I have leaned more in the direction of Leo Tolstoy who promoted non-resistance as the Christian view. I don't think the Old Testament is a fair example for modern governments. First, the Mosaic covenant was with a family, not a diverse group of people who organize politically. It is true that gentiles were allowed to join in that covenant, but God's covenant with Israel was for the two fold purpose of preparing the way for the Messiah to set up the permanent covenant open to all people and to show that the law magnified sin and no one could fulfill the law of God.

I also look upon the doctrine of Just Wars askance. In my studies on war, all wars are begun to plunder another people group. Therefore if you are on the receiving end, the Just War doctrine says you have the right to fight back in self defense. But as a Christian we are told that "Vengeance is mine, saith the Lord." He is our defense, which is why Jesus taught us to turn the other cheek. Furthermore, we are called as strangers and pilgrims seeking our home which is in heaven. To die is gain, meaning we go to heaven and come back with Jesus in glorified bodies that will never die again. So, I do not see the teaching of a Just War as Christian.

All wars may begin that way--but that may not be what ends them. There are times when there may be no choice---was the world to stand by and let Hitler run amok? The commandment is to not murder. After all---God did lead Israel in more than just a couple wars. Vengeance is God's, however, He has said we are entitled to justice. And it is one thing to turn the other cheek when standing up for your faith, but it'll be a cold day in the old inferno if I'll turn the other cheek while somebody is attacking my child--any child, for that matter--oh, heck, anybody else either!!---I'll be praying for strength to stomp them!!

 

[AlexDTX]

This is just semantics. It comes across as: God didn't ordain government, instead he ordained government.

And that's my point. I agree that God didn't advocate for the "nation" of Israel per the modern meaning of the word. His purposes with Israel were to prepare the way for the Christ, which indeed makes them the blessed chosen ones - just not "chosen" as many people interpret it.

But just because people abuse the idea of government doesn't mean the answer is to throw it away. I would encourage you to investigate Luther's idea of the two kingdoms if you haven't. So, we've made our cursory statements. If the discussion goes forward from here, I ask that you support your position Biblically because that is where I would expect one to draw statements such as "God doesn't ordain government". I think your view of Israel is a bit skewed. I hope you've not fallen prey to the historical minimalists.



There is a lot of "I" in this response. Did God command Joshua to conquer Canaan or did he not?

You call it semantics, but so did Jesus with the Sadducees. He said to them that Yahweh is the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Is means they are still alive, in his refuting their teaching that there is no resurrection of the dead. The distinction I am making is that God does not ordain the form of government nor the people chosen, to be in government. If He did, then He chose Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin and Ghengis Khan to murder their citizens. He did not, of course.

If my view on Israel is skewed than it is in making, once again, a distinction between Israelis that are genuinely descendants of Jacob in contrast to a political organization. God does not make covenants with organizations, only people. This is why the decision of the Supreme Court to call corporations as "people" so they could fund politicians was appalling. In law all corporations have been historically considered to be legal fictions.

God did tell Joshua to conquer Canaan, but that was a specific dispensation. He also said that the seed of Abraham would inherit the land of Canaan in perpetuity. Then he kicked them out. Is God fickle? I think not. Romans tells us the reason the Old Testament was given. It was to show sin.

 

[AlexDTX]

When they say; for God and country, they are not saying God is the same as their country. Notice the "and" between God and country.

Yes, I see the "and". But I am addressing a matter of the heart and the work of God. God does not work on behalf of countries. He works on behalf of those who put their faith in Christ, and he works with those who have not done so to draw them to Him.

 

[AlexDTX]

All wars may begin that way--but that may not be what ends them. There are times when there may be no choice---was the world to stand by and let Hitler run amok? The commandment is to not murder. After all---God did lead Israel in more than just a couple wars. Vengeance is God's, however, He has said we are entitled to justice. And it is one thing to turn the other cheek when standing up for your faith, but it'll be a cold day in the old inferno if I'll turn the other cheek while somebody is attacking my child--any child, for that matter--oh, heck, anybody else either!!---I'll be praying for strength to stomp them!!

Yes, I understand your point. I would be a liar myself if I did not say I would have the same desire and perhaps even action of self defense.

And I know the grace of God. God promised Abram and Sarah a child. They became impatient, and had a child with Hagar. Abram loved Ishmael, and God promised Hagar that he would become a great nation - not a political organization, by the way, but family. Look at the problems the world has had for the last 4,000 years because Abraham and Sarai were impatient.

We don't know how God would resolve things if we did not take matters in our own hands. I think too many Christians trust the government more than they do God.

 

[Albion]

Albion,
Your argument is based upon your assumption that there is no conflict of interests.

Sorta. It's based upon the idea that there is not a necessary conflict. It could be the case that a conflict would develop, here or in other countries, but not that there is something inherently in conflict about the two loyalties.

As Christians we are under the greater law of love, which is the law of our King. I have no problem with obeying laws that are good and just. Nor do I have a problem with obeying laws that are unjust, but I need to do so to stay out of the government crosshairs.

However, the heart of my question is one of idolatry. I see American Christians loving their country as being equal to loving God. "For God and country" as a phrase, makes them almost synonymous. We are called to obey God above country, if those laws are contrary to the law of God's love. This, to me, is the case of Jesus saying you can not serve two masters.

We're just in disagreement on this. That's OK, but I thought at first it might be capable of resolution.

So, Albion, I disagree with your assumption that there is no conflict. I agree we should avoid wars like the Mennonites, but our taxes are still paying for those wars, at least the interest on the money used for wars. We are forced to do so.

And that may be the main point of disagreement. When Jesus said to 'render unto Caesar' I do not think for a moment that he was saying to adopt a policy of deciding upon the merits of each and every government policy or that we ought to obey only because we might be prosecuted if we do not.