For this episode, we rerun David and Curtis tackling the topic of Christian nationalism. What is it? How does it relate to a genuine Christian understanding of how faith should relate to a nation? And how does it relate to the founders’ intentions? Curtis and David also explore the nature of healthy patriotism and how to love your national home, warts and all.

This excerpt has been edited for length and clarity. 

CURTIS CHANG: So what then for the church, David? We’ve got this minority movement gaining energy, adherence, attention, shaping the public discourse because of its extremism, and triggering opposing extremism. As Christians of good faith – hopefully the folks listening to this podcast – what is the call of God for us then in this moment?

DAVID FRENCH: Boy, that’s a great question. So I’m going to turn to C.S. Lewis for this, because it shouldn’t surprise anyone that C.S. Lewis thought about these issues.

In his book The Four Loves, Lewis talks about patriotism. In The Four Loves, he talks about agape, the love of God; eros, sexual love; philos, friendship; and storge, affection. He locates patriotism in this last love, and says it has several components – some that are benign and virtuous and others that are dangerous. And here’s what he says is benign and virtuous. I love the way he put it, so I’m going to read this paragraph. 

“First, there is love of home, of the place we grew up in or the places, perhaps many, which have been our homes; and of all places fairly near these and fairly like them; love of old acquaintances, of familiar sights, sounds and smells… As the family offers us the first step beyond self-love, so this offers us the first step beyond family selfishness.” 

Man, that’s a great line. He says, “Patriotism of this kind is not in the least aggressive. It asks only to be let alone. It becomes militant only to protect what it loves. In any mind which has a pennyworth of imagination, it produces a good attitude towards foreigners. How can I love my home without coming to realize that other men no less rightly love theirs?” 

I think that’s just beautifully stated. But here’s where things get dangerous.

He says that your affection for your country can lead to “a particular attitude to our country’s past” that “has not quite such good credentials as the sheer love of home. The actual history of every country is full of shabby and even shameful doings. The heroic stories, if taken to be typical, give a false impression of it and are often themselves open to historical criticism.” 

And the last, most dangerous component is this idea, “this firm, even prosaic belief that our own nation, in sober fact, has long been and still is markedly superior to all others.” This belief, he says, “can produce asses that kick and bite.” And, “On the lunatic fringe,” he says, “it may shade off into the popular racialism, which Christianity and science equally forbid.” 

That’s good stuff.

CURTIS CHANG: Yeah, it is good stuff. So let’s boil that down. It seems like Lewis is asking how we can love our country without blindness to its faults, but love it with its faults and to seek its well being in a way that is inclusive – in a way that makes room for others, the people who might otherwise be put in the “them” category as the foreigners, right? What does it mean at this moment for us to practice that kind of love of our country?

DAVID FRENCH: Well, let’s go in reverse order. We have to obliterate the dangerous manifestations Lewis talked about. 

It’s funny – I think about myself in this case because I’ve long said this is the greatest nation on earth. Well, it’s the most powerful nation on earth. It’s the wealthiest nation on earth. It has many great things about it.

I have had this conviction: Does my patriotism require me to say that this is the greatest nation? It has great things about it, but I don’t have to have this conviction that it’s “the greatest nation on earth” for me to love it.

CURTIS CHANG: Otherwise, how would somebody living in, let’s say, Panama be patriotic? Of course, they are patriotic. But they would never claim they’re the greatest country in the world. It’s only Americans who feel like love of country requires claiming supremacy over all other nations.

DAVID FRENCH: It’s not like Norwegians are sitting around going, “Too bad I can’t be American, but I guess Norway’s not bad for second.”

CURTIS CHANG: Yes, exactly. I think most Norwegians are very glad they’re Norwegians and not Americans, actually.

DAVID FRENCH: But it’s amazing how many times that’s just rolled off my tongue. It’s almost a synonym for, “I love this country,” but it should not be seen as a synonym. So, number one, rid yourself of this view that, to be a patriot, you have to view this country above all other countries. 

Number two, rid yourself of this view that, to be a patriot, you have to overlook or minimize the nation’s faults, especially since overlooking or minimizing its faults can be harmful to your fellow countrymen. It makes you fail to understand their experience, and fail to redress legitimate wrongs they have suffered. 

We need to be in this first category, this “love of home.” And one thing I love about the way Lewis puts it is that love of home does not for a moment mean disliking of others. In fact, it helps us understand others, because of course they’re going to love their home as well. 

And it’s not a pacifism either. He notes it becomes militant only to protect what it loves. Lewis is writing around World War II, so he knew the necessity of becoming militant. 

And I think about this network of defensive alliances that we’ve built around the world, how they are one of the great things about our country. It’s one of our country’s virtues because it protects the ability of other people to have and love their own homes.

CURTIS CHANG: Well look, I would not be here in the way that I am if America did not have that network. I was born in Taiwan and immigrated here when I was three years old. David, you and I know that if America was not around when I was born in 1968, I’d be growing up in communist China, right? If America did not extend its sense of protection by sending the 7th Fleet into the Taiwan Straits, there’s nothing stopping communist China from taking over Taiwan. And I’d have a very different life ahead of me. 

My dad didn’t even have a high school education, but my parents were able to immigrate to this country and live out the American dream, even though they didn’t have an education and barely knew any English. They worked up to a middle class existence and sent three kids to Ivy League schools. If America hadn’t opened up its shores to immigrants like my parents, I’m not here today, right? 

And saying all that doesn’t require me to overlook the flaws of America. America defended Taiwan, but it overturned a constitutionally elected government in Chile right around that same time I was born. So it’s both. It’s both of those things.

The same country that welcomed my parents and I passed the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882, the one piece of legislation in the United States history that explicitly barred a racial group from entry to this country. So we can look at our country and see that we are both fallen images and image bearers of God’s character and goodness. It doesn’t have to be one or the other.

DAVID FRENCH: Yeah, and I want to use Lewis’s family analogy: 

We know our spouse, we know our kids, and we want them to make good choices. We want them to live virtuous lives. But we know they’re not going to be perfect. And we know their flaws better than anybody. But does that diminish your love for your family? 

That’s one of the real challenges. We need to talk about this larger national community. We need enough security in our affection for our fellow citizens and our affection for our home that we are not insecure about the truth. And we can celebrate what’s good. I mean, your family’s story is wonderful.

It gets me on edge when I see how a lot of the right is turning away from legal immigration. That’s not the spirit of the classical liberal conservative world I grew up with. In that world, we were proud of the fact that people wanted to come here. 

And with the power we have, we have extended an umbrella of protection around a host of nations that contain hundreds of millions of souls. It’s not imperialism. Not to say that we’ve never been imperialist – of course we have – but that network of protection is not American imperialism. It is in national interests, but it is also an element of national sacrifice.

CURTIS CHANG: Well David, that’s why you went to Iraq, right? To help extend this strength of America to protect the vulnerable. And that’s America at its greatest. It’s not the only story or the whole story, but it is part of the story. And it’s a story that we want to uphold and nurture into further fruit.