Since the dramatic election result in South Australia last weekend, readers of news media, not least the Murdoch press, will have noticed a renewed emphasis on “patriotism.” Former Liberal Party Opposition Leader Alexander Downer was even moved to write an opinion piece provocatively headlined, “Liberals have forgotten patriotism. Now One Nation owns it.”[1]
What is patriotism? Samuel Johnson famously skewered it as “the last refuge of a scoundrel.” In contrast to nationalism, patriotism is not a political doctrine but a sentiment. It is often cultivated through symbols, narratives and institutions, but it is grounded in lived practices of solidarity and service. It encompasses pride in national achievements, concern for the common good, and willingness to contribute to the polity’s flourishing.
Political theorists might describe the phenomenon as an affective and ethical orientation of loyalty, attachment, and responsibility toward one’s country, expressed through shared identity, memory, and civic participation. It is invoked in debates about national identity, immigration, security, and cultural cohesion.
Patriotism may be presented as a virtue under threat or a necessary corrective to perceived social fragmentation. It situates individuals within a shared story, linking past, present, and future. For many, it provides a sense of belonging. It is the lack of such affective belonging that politicians such as Alexander Downer and Pauline Hanson seek to turn into political capital.
Political thinkers have long recognised this appeal. We are all shaped by communities, histories, traditions and shared stories. Patriotism may therefore feel natural, even necessary, to community life. It gives moral weight to civic duties such as voting, paying taxes, and serving others. Without some degree of shared loyalty, it is difficult to sustain the trust and cooperation on which democratic societies depend.
There are also clear benefits to patriotism when it is promoted in a balanced way. It encourages citizens to look beyond their own interests and contribute to the wider good of their community or nation. A healthy form of patriotism can motivate efforts to improve national life such as strengthening institutions, addressing inequality, and responding to crises such as natural disaster and war.
Political theorists seek to preserve these strengths while avoiding the dangers. The German philosopher Jürgen Habermas, for instance, argued for what he called “constitutional patriotism” as a response to the challenge of creating a new, post-national identity for West Germany after World War II. Rather than grounding national pride in ethnicity or cultural uniformity, he centred it on shared political values of democracy, human rights, and the rule of law.[2] In principle, this allows for a more inclusive form of belonging in culturally diverse societies such as Australia.
Yet patriotism comes with risks. One of the most significant dangers is that it may become exaggerated or distorted. What begins as a reasonable attachment to one’s country can harden into an uncritical loyalty that resists scrutiny and excuses morally unjustifiable acts. When this happens, patriotism can slide into an aggressive and exclusionary posture that defines political and cultural identity over against perceived outsiders.
Recent scholarship has highlighted how easily this shift can occur. The political theorist Yascha Mounk has argued that a sense of “exclusive nationalism” is on the rise in many democracies.[3] This form of identity politics frames the nation as belonging to a particular cultural or ethnic group, often accompanied by suspicion toward minorities or migrants. We saw this in the Cronulla riots in Sydney in 2005.[4]
From a theological perspective, the problem runs deeper. Religious traditions have long warned against turning finite goods into ultimate ones. When a nation’s interests are seen as beyond moral question, patriotism becomes a form of idolatry. History provides many examples of political leaders overtly wrapping national projects in religious language, thereby granting them a sense of divine legitimacy. Recent United States rhetoric seeking to justify unlawful military attacks on Iran illustrates the point.[5] This can make criticism seem not only unpatriotic but almost blasphemous.
Another danger is that patriotism can obscure injustice within one’s own society. Loyalty to the nation may discourage honest reflection about its failures, whether these involve historical wrongs, systemic inequality, or the marginalisation of certain groups. In this way, patriotism functions as a moral blindfold, encouraging pride without accountability and leading to physical violence and human rights abuse.
The Christian tradition offers both affirmation and critique of patriotism. On one hand, it recognises the value of seeking the welfare of one’s own community. The biblical call to “seek the peace and prosperity of the city” (Jeremiah 29:7) suggests that concern for one’s political community may be a legitimate expression of responsibility and care. On the other hand, Christian theology consistently resists attempts to make the nation an ultimate object of loyalty.
The teaching of Jesus brings this tension into sharp focus. While Jesus lived within a particular national and imperial context, his message repeatedly challenged narrow definitions of belonging. In the parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:25-37), for example, a man from a despised outsider group becomes the model of compassion, while those who share the victim’s identity fail to help. Jesus’s ethical message is clear: our moral responsibilities cannot be limited by national, ethnic, or cultural boundaries.
More broadly, if one were to compress Jesus’s critique of patriotism and nationalism into a set of propositions, it might look like this:
- No nation is ultimate: only God may command total allegiance.
- No boundary defines moral responsibility: neighbour-love crosses all lines.
- No enemy is beyond concern: we are called to love even our political enemies.
- No political order is sacred: all are subject to divine judgment.
- No identity secures righteousness: belonging is redefined around radical obedience to God.
The Jesus of the canonical Gospels, then, does not offer a program for abolishing nations, but he does oppose every attempt to absolutize the nation-state. His teaching allows for reasonable forms of political belonging, but warns against such belonging turning to idolatry (e.g., claiming ultimate loyalty), exclusion (e.g., denying the dignity of others), or violence (e.g., justifying harm in the name of the nation).
Love of country is not wrong, but it is not absolute. Patriotism must remain open to ethical critique. It must be shaped by a commitment to justice, humility, and concern for others beyond our own borders.
The current revival of patriotic language in Australian public discourse makes this balance all the more important. We need to ask: What kind of patriotism is being promoted? Is it inclusive or exclusionary? Is it critical or simplistic? Is it oriented toward the common good, or toward the elevation of a particular group seeking political or cultural power?
These are not merely theoretical questions. They go to the heart of how we understand ourselves as Australians, and how we think about and treat those within and beyond our borders. A fresh look at patriotism, informed by political insight and theological wisdom, may help ensure that the recent calls for stronger patriotism serve the common good rather than division.
Rev Dr Rod Benson is General Secretary of the NSW Ecumenical Council and a minister of the Uniting Church in Australia serving at North Rocks Community Church in Sydney.
References
[1] Alexander Downer, “Liberals have forgotten patriotism. Now One Nation owns it,” The Australian, 23 Mar 2026, available at https://www.theaustralian.com.au/commentary/the-liberals-have-forgotten-patriotism-now-one-nation-owns-it/news-story/.
[2] This notion appears in many of Habermas’s writings. See, for example, A Berlin Republic: Writings on Germany (trans. Steven Rendell; Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1997).
[3] Yascha Mounk, The Great Experiment: Why Diverse Democracies Fall Apart and How They Can Endure (New York: Penguin Press, 2022).
[4] See https://www.nma.gov.au/defining-moments/resources/cronulla-race-riots
[5] For example, “Pete Hegseth’s Christian rhetoric draws renewed scrutiny after the US goes to war with Iran,” National Catholic Reporter, 20 Mar 2026, available at https://www.ncronline.org/news/pete-hegseths-christian-rhetoric-draws-renewed-scrutiny-after-us-goes-war-iran
Image source: The Australian
iDigress 