Editor’s note: This interview has been edited for length and clarity.  

Chris Crawford: Could you talk about your new book, “In Defense of Christian Patriotism”? 

Daniel Darling: America’s nearing its 250th anniversary. There’s a lot of conversation, as we approach that, about what is the meaning of patriotism, and particularly for people of faith wrestling with, “what does it mean to love my country?” 

I think a lot of evangelicals even have some angst about patriotism because I think it’s fair to say there’s been a steady diet of … some antagonism toward Christians engaging in the public square by members of the media who kind of view it as a threat to democracy — or even well-meaning Christians who feel like love of country is idolatrous and it’s not putting Christ first. There is a way that you can do it that way, and I talk about it in the book. And I want to make the case that, actually, loving your country is consistent with Christian witness. And I want to make the case that it’s not a binary choice [to] love your country or love God, but it’s about ordering your loves.  If I love God the most, then I can love my country well and all my other lesser allegiances. But loving God and loving country are not inconsistent.  

Crawford: How do you define the term patriotism? 

Darling: I agree with Teddy Roosevelt that loving your country does not mean always agreeing with every policy that comes out of a particular administration or doesn’t mean overlooking injustices committed by your country. But it’s this genuine love and gratitude for what you’ve inherited. And I would say as an American, what I’ve inherited [is] the place, the people, the symbols, and a desire to bestow that and bequeath that to the next generation. 

Crawford: Next year will be 250 years since the signing of the Declaration of Independence.  How do you think we should reflect on this 250th anniversary? 

Darling: I have a whole chapter in the book on how to think about history. First of all, I love American history. If I have a hobby, it’s reading American history. I love reading biographies, love going to presidential libraries. I drag my family there. I just love it so much.  

But I think there’s two wrong ways to view history, particularly as we’re thinking about patriotism.  One wrong way is to whitewash all the sins that America has committed – the dark parts of our history – as if they didn’t happen or maybe kind of minimize them. But I think an equal and opposite danger is to act as if those injustices are the only history that we have. So, I would take issue with the whitewashing of it, but I also take issue with, you know, projects that seek to make it as if the only story to tell about America is one of oppression and cruelty and all those kinds of things. I don’t think that’s true. And I think one of the things that’s unique about America is America has always seen itself as an ongoing project. Written into our founding documents is the idea of a more perfect union, and every good social movement in the country revered the founding documents, revered the founding ideals and yet said, “hey, we haven’t lived up to those.”  

This is why I think it’s so important for us to not get cynical and nihilistic, but to say: these the ideas of the founders are good. We should celebrate those in America 250. And if you think even of folks like Martin Luther King [Jr.] or Frederick Douglass, they – even though they were speaking out against slavery and segregation – they revered the founders. If you read Frederick Douglass’s “What to the Slave is Fourth of July,” he reveres the founders. And yet he says, we haven’t fully lived up to this. And King says, we have a promissory note we haven’t fully lived. And I think that’s the way to do it.  

I would say myself as a pro-life American, I don’t like the practice of abortion. And I think it’s really tragic that we have seen so many abortions in our history. But I still love my country. And one of the arguments I make against abortion is to say: this isn’t consistent with our founding documents. All men are created equal. So, I think you have to love your country and love those ideals in order to make change for the next generation. 

Crawford: At Interfaith America, we talk a lot about pluralism and bridgebuilding. The word, “pluralism”, can sometimes be contested or misunderstood. What’s your definition of pluralism? 

Darling: …For some people that can seem like we just think everyone should believe the same things or have this sort of mushy area that people don’t believe anything… that “all roads lead to heaven” or “all paths lead to this.” And if you actually look at the major religions … they don’t believe that, right? They believe that our way, you know, for instance, a Christian, I believe Jesus’s words, “I’m the way, truth, and the life…”  

I think a true, robust way of thinking about [pluralism] is that we don’t want people to leave their beliefs behind but bring them to the table and have conversations with other people who disagree with us. This is the essence. I’m a Baptist, and Baptists champion this idea of religious liberty. And if you look at our early Baptists, they said, “we believe this is the truth. And yet we also believe people should have the freedom to believe what they believe.”  

The government shouldn’t coerce belief. It shouldn’t force belief on people. Christianity makes exclusive truth claims, but Christianity also says that every human being is made in the image of God. And so, I must value my neighbor who disagrees with me because they’re an image bearer of God. And I can’t force them to believe something. I don’t want to use the tools of the government to force them to believe something. But I’m going to bring that to the public square.  

Crawford: Your previous book, “The Dignity Revolution,” was about prioritizing human dignity in our public life. What’s the connection that you see between pluralism and religious liberty and the ability to live out this dignity-centered politics that you believe in? 

Darling: Well, I think first of all, the idea of human dignity says that every human being has a conscience. And as Christians, we would say that it’s a violation of someone’s dignity to force them to believe something they don’t believe. So when Jesus says, “Render to Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s,” and he asks for what is the image on that coin, what he’s saying is there are certain things that in a Christian understanding that God has delegated to the role of the government: civil order and all these things. But there’s certain things that are not the property of government. It’s particularly the conscience. The government can’t pave over the conscience. You were not made in the image of the state; you’re made in the image of a God. I think our founders actually understood this when they said we have certain inalienable rights we are endowed by our creator, and they’re self-evident. If you actually listen to what the founders are saying, they’re saying our rights are not granted to us by the government, but by God.  

Part of recognizing someone’s dignity is to be able to disagree well. And when we talk about an environment in our country where people can disagree and have religious liberty, we’re saying that you bring your whole truth to the public square, and you actually seek to try to persuade people who disagree with you. Part of treating someone as a full human being is recognizing their ability to hear arguments and possibly be persuaded. Part of that “loving our neighbor” is bringing our truths to the public square and articulating what we feel are the best policies for our neighbors flourishing.  

Crawford: On the topic of political violence, Ross Douthat wrote a column with some questions that we all need to consider. One was a question of how you love your country when it’s governed by a man you hate. When we are feeling that way and we feel so strongly about the danger from the people by whom we’re being governed, how do you think we should approach this question? 

Darling: One of the unique features of the American project is you can have a debate about what do you do when you strongly dislike the person in power. We know there are countries where it’s a crime to express disagreement with the leader. 

They’re not having this debate in North Korea or in China or even in Russia. Here in the United States… for the most part, you can go online, you can post whatever you want about whatever political figure and you’re not going to get rounded up and thrown in jail. That’s a good hallmark of American government. I do think one thing Christians have to bring to bear in this is that even when we’re being led by people we dislike or disagree with, or might even be cruel or despotic or tyrants, we can trust that ultimately God is sovereign. And Romans 13 tells us that God is the one that puts them in place, which is a comfort to say they have a shelf life and they’re not going to be there forever.  

Paul was writing to the Romans who could not vote. Paul would not have voted for Nero, and they had no choice and no agency …. And I think as Christians, we would say it’s okay to strongly dislike someone in power, to disagree with them, to work against them politically, to try to get them out of office. This is part of the American project, and this is good and noble. But we have to put our priorities in order. 

People of all political persuasions should denounce political violence with no exceptions, no ifs, ands, or buts. Nothing is so existential to advocate for [violence] or even nod to [violence]. But I think secondly, you have young people or people who are committing these acts who I think are caught and radicalized in a sort of web of nihilism. When you start to think that nothing matters and nobody cares, that’s a really dangerous place to be. I think we need to think about how some people are … in these deep and dark worlds of the internet that are really depraved and they’re getting radicalized in this way. 

So, we need to pray for the climate of our country. I think we do need spiritual and moral renewal in the country. And even if you are an atheist or a skeptic, if you think Christians are a little crazy, you should root for spiritual and moral renewal because I think ultimately is as important as politics is. That is going to be key to preserving our experiment in “ordered liberty” and taking the temperature down to where people don’t think violence is the only answer. 

Crawford: Thank you very much. 

Darling: Well, it’s an honor to be interviewed, talk about these things, and I’m actually hopeful about the country, and I want people to see that. I think our best days are ahead of us.