In America and throughout the world, it is not at all uncommon to find that nation’s flag flown prominently in the churches. In certain “conservative” circles especially in America, faith and patriotism have become virtually synonymous, to the point that entire “Patriotic” sections can be found in many hymnals. The Church has, with only minimal prompting from the state, given over its heart in devotion thereto.

How did this come to be in a nation founded on the principles of keeping its churches and state mutually unencumbered by one another? As much as it would like to deny so, American Protestantism has inherited a long legacy of church-state entwinement from the Catholic Church through the foundation of the Anglican Church, which obliterated any claim to intrinsic moral superiority that the Reformation may for a time have enjoyed. Furthermore, it is no less the nature of the Christian than anyone else to form political opinions. The problem is that religious and moral traditionalism become linked with patriotic and nationalistic traditionalism, when in reality such a link is purely imaginary and entirely unnecessary.

There are significant repercussions in both the political and religious realms for the overlap in these demographics. Those that are apprehensive about Obama because of his Muslim upbringing are the same that fault him for allegedly not saluting the flag. These are the same who see the War on Terror as a religious war against Islam (and see that as a good thing), and the same who claim America as a Christian nation and thus perpetuate the association of Christianity with American exports in the eyes of the Muslims on the other side who also see it as a religious war.

One of the fundamental characteristics of the Church is universality - that the body of Christ transcends geopolitical borders. Conflation of faith and patriotism seriously undermines this universality. Is a Mexican or Arab Christian any less of a Christian for being Mexican or Arab? Not many would say “yes” out loud simply because it’s become culturally unacceptable to do so (though I might be surprised), but the mindset is nevertheless there, and becomes the impetus for subconscious racial or cultural discrimination.

Secondly, the aims of the Church and of individual states are often at odds. Jesus said “No one can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to one and despise the other”, but through some sort of doublethink many have placed their love for country on par with, or even above, their love for God. The ultimate aim of any state is self-preservation at any cost, while the aim of the Church is glorification of God. Much of the time these are not in conflict as the Christian is called to submit to the state so far as this does not run counter to the law of God, but this is not always the case. There is of course the obvious instance where a government outlaws Christian practice (in which case it is unlikely that Christians would feel strongly patriotic), but more often the conflict of more subtle. Following the first point, in wartime when a nation floods the airwaves with nationalistic propaganda, how will you feel towards the people of the enemy state? Will you hate them as the state insists, or will you love them as God commands? When the country enters an economic slump and sends you a refund check to encourage you to spend more, will you run out and spend it as Congress desires, or be content in this and every situation (Phillipians 4:10)?

The American Church has an easy enough remedy: there is nothing external to prevent the abolition of patriotism in the Church. Unfortunately this is not so simple elsewhere: churches such as the Anglican Church as well as churches in most of Europe and even parts of Asia now which are fundamentally tied to their governments, are faced with a more systemic problem. The problem may be more apparent somewhere like China, where the ties were established forcefully by the state with the ultimate goal of emasculating the Church, than in Europe where often the question of whether the Church or the State came first becomes fuzzy. But the problem is nevertheless intrinsic, and not one of specific instances of conflicts of interest. Without a deliberate structural break from the state which may or may not be possible depending on the government, individual movement from state churches to independent churches is the only sure and permanent way to release the Church from the shackles of loyalty to earthly government.

Lest you think I’m going to be giving the Democratic base a break while I bite the Republicans, this bit of fun has been going around various left-wing blogs. Liberal bloggers have collectively lambasted Obama for appearing on Fox News without a confrontation and undoing all their work to “delegitimize the network”.

Delegitimize the network. YA RLY.

Let’s look at this lofty goal. Why try to delegitimize a major news outlet? They cite a constant conservative bias in reporting and “repeatedly broadcasting some of the most specious of rumors about Obama”. According to the article, one DailyKos blogger even said “By going on Fox News, Obama made the right-wing press legitimate. Simply put, I cannot vote or support anyone who participates in this medium.”

So the issue is a partisan bias. Shall we look at the left-wing press then? As I recall, McCain’s most successful fundraising day to that point came the day after the New York Times broadcasted its own pretty specious rumor about him. The New York Times has not endorsed a Republican candidate since Dwight D. Eisenhower in the 1950s - a pretty solid pattern. In fact, with the exception of radio, the Left has a far more pervasive grip on all sorts of media than does the Right. But when was the last time you heard of a group of conservatives conspiring together to delegitimize the New York Times?

Or is it the case that the Left has a right to media and the Right doesn’t? For all the bemoaning of the left about civil liberties lost under the Bush administration, this amounts to nothing less than grassroots speech control. Whether it comes from above or below, the effect is the same, and just as wrong. This stunt is patently ridiculous, blatantly hypocritical, and thankfully completely infeasible.

So to these bloggers: News is politics. The media is just as private as you and me and thus has just as much right to be partisan as you and me. Bias and partisanship are thus inevitable until the demand for unbiased news exceeds apathy or blindness to bias. But if you’re going to be part of that demand, if you’re going to criticize media bias, be fair and balanced yourself: take the plank first out of your own eyes.