Voices: For God and country?

The phrase “for God and country” has a long history rooted in ancient Roman philosophy, Christian theology, and modern military and civic traditions. It traditionally expresses a person’s obligations to both spiritual values and their homeland. It’s a proud heritage. It’s also a temptation we must guard against.

History

In ancient Rome, Cicero and other authors used the Latin phrase Pro aris et focis—literally, “for altars and hearths”—to describe a citizen’s obligation to defend both the religious altars of the household and the physical home.

In the 13th century, theologian Thomas Aquinas explicitly outlined a moral hierarchy of these obligations. He wrote that after God, human beings are chiefly indebted to their parents and their country. Aquinas argued, just as the virtue of religion directs us to worship God, the virtue of piety directs us to express love and allegiance to our country.

During the post-Renaissance and early modern periods, the idea also found expression in the Latin motto Pro Deo et Patria (for God and country), which has subsequently been used by Christian institutions and military organizations. The U.S. Army Chaplain Corps, for example, uses Pro Deo et Patria as its motto.

In May 1919, following the end of World War I, the newly formed veteran organization The American Legion adopted the phrase as the opening words of its preamble: “For God and Country we associate ourselves together.” The sentiment has also influenced military culture more broadly.

Today, the phrase remains a familiar expression in churches, military settings, and civic life, symbolizing the connection many Americans have historically made between religious faith and patriotic duty.

I appreciate this history and the way it has shaped our values, especially our prioritization of faith. As a Baptist Christian, however, I am leery of any iteration of it that seeks to blend or syncretize devotion to God and country.

A Baptist position

One of the earliest Baptist churches in America was established in Providence, R.I., where Roger Williams had settled after being banished from the Massachusetts Bay Colony for his religious convictions.

Williams and the Providence settlers formally agreed to “hold forth Liberty of Conscience,” making laws “only in civil things.” This established an early distinction between civil government and religious authority. Unlike neighboring colonies, Providence did not establish a state church or require religious conformity.

This commitment to religious liberty is also reflected in our Baptist heritage. The church where I am pastor affirms the Baptist Faith and Message 1963, which declares, “a free church in a free state is the Christian ideal.” In such an ideal, the state does not make demands on the church, and the church does not seek to “baptize” the state.

A caution

This does not mean Christians should refrain from bringing their convictions to bear on the public square. But they should beware of groups or politicians who seek to court them on the basis of shared religious convictions rather than substantive political issues.

When we syncretize, or blend together God and country, the phrase no longer indicates a hierarchy of priorities—God first, country second. Instead, it becomes a co-opted agenda in which God and country are treated as a combined ideology.

Politicians on both sides are actively inviting Christians to do the latter. While Ken Paxton has actively championed policies to allow or require the display of the Ten Commandments in public school classrooms, James Talarico has used Scripture and theology in an attempt to persuade voters that true Christian values align with progressive policies.

Jesus’ response

This is nothing new. In Jesus’s day, competing political movements worked together to trap Jesus into choosing one political group over another.

In Matthew 22, the Pharisees and Herodians approached him and asked whether they should pay taxes to Caesar. The Pharisees were religious leaders who generally opposed Roman rule, while the Herodians were associated with the ruling Herodian dynasty and were more accommodating toward Roman authority. They were attempting to force Jesus into a politically dangerous choice.

Instead of giving an either/or answer, Jesus famously replied, “Give back to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s” (Matthew 22:15–22). In other words, Jesus refused to allow his kingdom and mission to be co-opted by either group, regardless of how conservative or progressive their agenda might have been.

It is not uncommon to hear a well-intentioned Christian express the idea it is one’s “Christian duty” to vote. I do not think this is the way Jesus would frame Christian responsibility. A hierarchical understanding of God and country—God first, country second—most closely reflects Jesus’s admonition to “give back to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s.”

I can hear the objections, even as I type this conclusion: “Pastor Matt, are you saying voting isn’t important for a Christian?” Of course, not. But Jesus said to “seek first the kingdom of God” (Matthew 6:33).

Prioritize God’s kingdom, participate in our country, and never confuse the two.

Matt Richard is pastor of First Baptist Church in Llano. The views expressed in this opinion article are those of the author.