Recently I made an error that led to an important correction. In discussing blasphemy and political power, I mistakenly referenced "Gott ist gut" on Nazi military insignia. Several thoughtful friends correctly pointed out that the actual phrase was "Gott mit uns" ("God with us") – a slogan with roots in Prussian military tradition dating back to the early 19th century.
I'm grateful for the historical correction. It actually strengthens the theological argument I was making while revealing something more disturbing: how religious language gets weaponized not just by obviously bad actors, but through centuries of slow theological drift that most of us miss entirely.
The problem with "Gott mit uns" isn't that evil people misused religious language. The problem is that good people prepared the way for such misuse by gradually forgetting what it means to speak carefully about God.
When Prayer Becomes Propaganda
The conventional narrative treats "Gott mit uns" as a cautionary tale about cynical political manipulation of religion. This interpretation conveniently locates the problem in obviously bad actors—Prussian militarists, Nazi propagandists—while leaving contemporary religious-military entanglements comfortably unexamined.
But this misses the deeper theological corruption. The phrase began as something like a prayer: "Lord, be with us in this difficult task." Somewhere along the way, it became a presumption: "God is with us in what we're doing." The shift from supplication to authorization marks the moment when humility before God transforms into speaking for God.
Historical Insight: The phrase appeared on Prussian military belt buckles for over a century before the Nazis adopted it. This reveals how theological corruption operates not through dramatic apostasy but through gradual drift from prayer to presumption, from "Help us, God" to "God helps us."
The theological error here predates Hitler by generations. When Friedrich Wilhelm III first authorized the phrase for Prussian military insignia in 1813, he was already transforming personal prayer into public proclamation. The belt buckle became a talisman. The prayer became a slogan. And "God with us" evolved from desperate supplication into confident authorization.
Most Americans reading this are probably thinking, "Well, yes, that's obviously problematic." But then we might ask: What's the theological difference between "Gott mit uns" on a German belt buckle and "God Bless America" sung at the seventh-inning stretch?
The Theological Problem We're All Missing
Here's what makes this theologically interesting rather than just historically cautionary: the corruption of religious language happens not through obvious apostasy but through the gradual erosion of theological precision. Most people involved in this drift were probably sincere believers who would have been horrified to think they were speaking presumptuously about God's will.
The Hebrew Scriptures are relentlessly clear about this danger. When Isaiah warns against those who "call evil good and good evil" (Isaiah 5:20), he's not primarily addressing obviously immoral people. He's addressing religious leaders who have gradually lost the ability to distinguish between their political preferences and God's justice. The prophetic tradition consistently challenges rulers who claim divine sanction for policies that contradict divine character.
Consider how Jesus handles this precise temptation in Mark 12:13-17. When political leaders try to trap him into choosing between religious and political authority, Jesus refuses to grant political authority religious legitimacy. He doesn't say politics doesn't matter—he says political authority cannot claim divine authorization.
This is a different kind of political engagement than most American Christians practice. We tend to think faithful political engagement means identifying God's will with our political positions. Jesus demonstrates faithful political engagement by maintaining theological boundaries around political claims.
§
The tragedy of German Christianity in the 1930s wasn't primarily that evil people manipulated religion. The tragedy was that sincere Christians had gradually lost the theological tools to distinguish between political necessity and divine command. By the time "Gott mit uns" appeared on Nazi belt buckles, German Protestant churches had spent generations accepting the state's authority to speak definitively about God's will.
Dietrich Bonhoeffer saw this clearly. His participation in plots against Hitler never claimed divine authorization for political violence. Instead, he understood such actions as accepting guilt for the sake of others—a theological framework that preserves moral agency while acknowledging moral complexity. Bonhoeffer acted decisively without claiming to speak for God.
This is what Practical Atheism looks like in religious clothing: when faith becomes a tool for political purposes rather than a source of political critique. The theological language remains intact, but it has been quietly evacuated of the transcendent authority that might challenge our political calculations.
Personal Confession: How I Learned to Stop Blessing Violence
I must confess my own complicity in the patterns I'm critiquing. As a former naval officer, I participated in military institutions that routinely invoke divine blessing on actions that cause suffering. I repeated phrases like "God bless America" and "God bless our troops" without adequately considering what I was asking God to bless.
The comfort of believing "God is with us" in our defensive actions protected me from the harder theological work of distinguishing between moral necessity and divine authorization. It's much easier to assume divine approval than to maintain the humility appropriate to creatures making tragic choices in a broken world.
Looking back, I can see how this theological laziness prepared the ground for more explicit forms of religious nationalism. When we casually claim divine blessing on our violence—even defensive violence we believe morally necessary—we create conceptual space for more systematic theological presumption. The line between "God help us do what's necessary" and "God blesses what we're doing" becomes increasingly blurred.
This doesn't mean faithful Christians cannot participate in just defense of the innocent. It means we must do so without claiming divine authorization for our political calculations. We can act decisively to protect the vulnerable while acknowledging the tragic nature of violence and refusing to baptize our necessary actions as God's perfect will.
Bonhoeffer's example provides a better model: accept responsibility for difficult moral choices without claiming to speak for God about them.
When America Says "Gott Mit Uns"
Understanding this pattern challenges how contemporary religious and political leaders invoke divine blessing on military action. When politicians bless cruise missiles or claim divine guidance for foreign policy, they repeat the theological error that "Gott mit uns" represents: presuming to speak for God about matters requiring human moral reasoning.
The theological problem isn't whether defensive violence is sometimes necessary—faithful Christians have long debated just war theory with legitimate disagreement. The problem emerges when we move from "this tragic action may be necessary" to "God is with us in this action."
Contemporary American Christianity often treats military chaplains blessing weapons systems or political leaders claiming divine guidance for war as normal rather than recognizing these as theological boundary violations. We've normalized what should scandalize us: speaking for God about matters requiring human moral judgment.
Consider the theological difference between these statements:
"Lord, help us protect the innocent, even through tragic means"
"God blesses our military action because it protects the innocent"
The first maintains appropriate humility before God while acknowledging moral responsibility. The second claims divine authorization for human political calculations. The first is prayer; the second is presumption.
Theological Precision: The difference between acknowledging God's presence in difficult circumstances and claiming God's authorization for our actions marks the boundary between faithful political engagement and theological presumption.
The Cross as Political Theology
The Cross offers a radically different understanding of divine power than "Gott mit uns" represents. Rather than God sanctioning human violence, we see God's power working through vulnerable love. Instead of divine authorization for inflicting suffering, we see God bearing suffering for others' sake.
This doesn't lead to political paralysis but to theological precision: distinguishing between our best moral reasoning under tragic circumstances and God's perfect will revealed in Christ's cruciform love. We can act to protect the innocent while maintaining humility about the tragic nature of such action.
The cruciform pattern suggests that when violence becomes necessary to protect the vulnerable, faithful people bear such action as a burden rather than claiming it as a blessing. We act decisively while acknowledging the brokenness that makes such action necessary. We take responsibility without claiming divine sanction.
This creates space for political engagement that neither withdraws from difficult moral choices nor presumes to speak for God about them. It maintains what I call Cruciform Authority: evaluating all political claims according to Christ's teaching and example rather than blessing our political preferences with divine approval.
Conclusion: Learning to Pray Instead of Presuming
The phrase "Gott mit uns" reveals how religious language gets corrupted when political power claims divine authorization rather than seeking divine guidance. This pattern persists across political systems because it addresses the deep human desire to believe our necessary actions carry transcendent approval.
But faithful political engagement requires maintaining the theological humility appropriate to finite creatures making difficult moral choices. We can act decisively to protect the innocent while acknowledging the tragic nature of violence and refusing to claim divine authorization for our political calculations.
The alternative isn't political withdrawal but theological precision. Instead of "God with us" as we inflict suffering, we pray "God help us" as we bear the moral burden of protecting others. Instead of claiming divine blessing on our military actions, we ask divine forgiveness for the brokenness that makes such actions necessary.
This kind of theological honesty doesn't make political choices easier—it makes them more difficult by requiring us to act without the comfort of presumed divine approval. But it preserves the transcendent authority that might actually challenge our political calculations rather than simply blessing them.
Perhaps most importantly, it allows us to distinguish between German belt buckles and American bumper stickers not because we're obviously more righteous than previous generations, but because we've learned to pray instead of presume when speaking about God's will.
The question isn't whether God is with us in our political struggles. The question is whether we're humble enough to seek God's will rather than claiming it.
Key Terms
Cruciform Authority: The principle that all religious and political claims must be evaluated according to Christ's teaching and example rather than blessing our political preferences with divine approval. Full entry →
Practical Atheism: The functional removal of Jesus as moral exemplar while maintaining Christian language and identity—faith as a tool for political purposes rather than a source of political critique. Full entry →
Theological Presumption: The sin of claiming to speak for God or know God's will in matters requiring human moral reasoning rather than divine revelation. Full entry →
Notes
[1] Friedrich Wilhelm III authorized "Gott mit uns" for Prussian military belt buckles in 1813 during the Wars of Liberation against Napoleon.
[2] For analysis of German church accommodation to state authority, see Klaus Scholder, The Churches and the Third Reich (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1988).
[3] Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Ethics, ed. Clifford Green (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2005), 275-289.
Share this post