American Exceptionalism

[Dave Roberts]

As I have listened to bits of speeches from the RNC (and I am sure to hear more of the same from the DNC), it disturbs me how we seem to present a picture of God who is more concerned about the USA than any other nation (unless it is Israel). There also seems a vibrant stream declaring that "might makes right." Somehow it sounds a lot like that against which the Old Testament prophets often railed. I have been reading the messages of Jeremiah addressed to the nations, and I am struck by how much we seem to suffer from the same egotism and nationalism that afflicted Judah. They thought God was only concerned with protecting and providing for them. The prophet, in what could not have been popular, was declaring that God was equally concerned even with their enemies and cared about the rising falling of those enemies just as surely as he cared about the rising and falling of Israel. Indeed, the punishment was greater and the standard was higher for Judah than for any of the surrounding nations. Am I hearing what is there, or am I missing something here?

[KeithE]

[ET]

[Dave Roberts]

[Sandy]

No, Dave, you're not missing anything. The religious right has pushed its futurist view of eschatology into the political arena, and attached it to American policy toward Israel, as well as having developed a view of America as the chosen protector of the chosen people in much the same way that Anglo-Israelism developed in Great Britain during the Victorian period. There' this idea that somehow, the superiority of the English speaking peoples puts God in the position of holding our coat-tails and cheering us on as we assume the mantle of the Old Testament covenant relationship because we hover over the "Israel" that exists today. Aside from the major difference that the Israel of today is not even close to the homogenous Jewish state that it was under the OT covenant, that its government is a completely secular, largely atheistic entity representing a predominantly atheistic and agnostic population that includes a large minority of Arabic speaking Muslims, somehow, through futurist eschatology, the thinking is that this will somehow bring some kind of revival or covenant relationship between God and Washington, DC. At least, as long as the Republicans are in charge.

There's an eerie echo in this that goes back into Mitt Romney's Mormonism. Mormon theology denies virtually every core tenet of the Christian faith, from the virgin birth, to Jesus' divine and human nature, to the resurrection, to salvation by grace through faith, to the atonement. It is as close to the New Testament definition of Anti-Christ as we have existing in the modern world, and it is a great deceiver, hiding behind good works and good deeds. One of the core doctrines of Mormon prophecy is the prediction, by Joseph Smith, that the Mormon church was being equipped and prepared to assume the mantle of political leadership of the United States, and, once in their hands, they would use the political, economic and military might of the US to conquer the rest of the world which would usher in the Kingdom of God on earth. Somewhere in their end-times litany, the God of this earth, who is really Adam, the first man, and Jesus, who is his flesh and bone son produced by having sex with Mary, hand the mantle of godhood over to Joseph Smith, who then becomes the "god" of this world. From a conservative, evangelical perspective, that is blasphemy that deserves the 'anathema" of Galatians 1:8-9, yet there are conservative, evangelical leaders who will bust a gut trying to get this man elected President of the United States. Maybe the apocalypse is just around the corner!

[Dave Roberts]

I think this issue is broader than the religious right or dispensational premillenialism. There seems a great deal in our political discourse that assumes God cares more about us as a nation than he cares about people in Myanmar or Namibia or Kazachstan. It seems much more a case of our pride and ego rather than theology.

[James]

Dave, I think you are right.

What scares me is that some of our leaders and their followers exault in the idea that we are now God's new chosen people. Do they not realize that God holds his chosen to a higher standard and hands out punishment for failing to meet those standards.

These same people think Sodom and Gomorrah were distroyed for homosexual activity, but God had already condemned S&G for ignoring cultural standards of hospitality and for neglecting widows and orphans.

So now we want to elect leaders who have made a career of neglecting widows and orphans. In red states we are passing laws to make it extremely difficult for non-whites, the elderly and the poor to vote.

I know that many who read these words will argue that I am out of line and missing the point, but I am convinced that if we do not make some changes soon, my children, 40ish, will live to see one or both of two things-a bloody class revolution in this country worse than the French Revolution or the disentigration of the United States into as many as 11 separate nations.

[ET]

[Sandy]

[KeithE]

[Dave Roberts]

[ET]

[Sandy]

[Stephen Fox]

Put it in perspective in the ethicsdaily.com story up today. This one may be worth following on the facebook wall for the site.

[ET]

I wasn't implying that everything America has done in her past is right. That can't be true for any country at any time. Sure, the Spanish-American war was started under mostly false pretense, but it's one thing to rid our part of the world at that time of European influence under the Monroe Doctrine. It's another to set out to conquer the world. Mexico and Canada would have been ripe for picking in the last two centuries, but we didn't do it.

What empire set on land acquisition would yield to the desires of a small populace such as that in Cuba? If you are implying that essentially an empire with overwhelming force restrained herself from absorbing a relatively small island due to fear of being seen as violating some moral ideal of independence, then that is truly exceptional. I don't find such actions to be the norm for empires in world history.

The western part of this country was bound to be a free-for-all with it being sparsely populated by "civilized" folks (as people in that day thought of themselves compared to the "savages"), regardless of who claimed to "own" the land.

However, the general argument isn't about what happened in forming the boundaries of this country, but in how it has generally acted after it was, for the most part, complete....by late 19 century or so. It has not followed in the footsteps of almost every other empire in world history. It has been committed to a set of ideals and expanding those ideals to other people, not pursued the accumulation of land and imposing it's will on others.

[ET]