As an educated Baby Boomer (but not an American history major), I found much of the narrative informative. For instance, at the pivotal Battle of Kings Mountain, there was only one British officer present who led Loyalist regiments against the Patriots. Throughout the series the Loyalists were presented fairly, as persons who followed their conscience, not as fools or villains, although some, like Colonel Tarlton, were.

George Washington is highlighted as man of tact and courage, indispensable in keeping the poorly supplied Continental Army and its untrained militias together. The series stressed that the American victory ultimately came because the Americans wore the British out, not that they had won many battles.

Washington’s choice of resisting being crowned after the war and retiring to Mt. Vernon, plus his refusal to run for a third term, were shown as pivotal for the democratic development of our nation. We can be especially thankful of this in view of the tragedies and tyrannical governments that followed the 1960s era of independence from French and British colonial governments where insurgent generals often became cruel and long-lasting tyrants.

On the other hand, The American Revolution made a frank presentation of Washington’s involvement in land speculation of Indian-owned territory and his order for the destruction of towns and crops of the Indians in Western New York. The description of that campaign was especially difficult to watch, as it must have been for many of my Baby Boomer contemporaries. We were not normally taught these negative aspects about Washington, even though such things are now routinely taught in practically every American history course. Washington’s role as slave owner was also clearly shown, including how he meticulously administered the return of runaway slaves to their owners at the end of hostilities.

This differs with the traditional versions we Baby Boomers learned as high-school and college students. You can find such a perspective in the video, “The First American” (2015) put out by the Gingrich Foundation and hosted by Newt and Callista Gingrich along with a roster of conservative luminaries. In this presentation, the only reference to Washington’s relationship with slavery was about his will, in which he freed his slaves. Also not mentioned were the campaigns against the Indians. However, to be fair about the latter, some sort of military action was necessary to secure the New York and Pennsylvania fronts from constant Indian raids.

But conservative critics do have real reasons for their claim that Burn’s The American Revolution was partly a “hatchet job” (pun intended). A detailed review by Dan McLaughlin in the National Review, “No, Ken Burns, the United States Is Not an Iroquois Nation” (Nov 22, 2025), cites several historical errors including a big ideological misinterpretation.

Most disturbing was the absence of any description of English constitutional history in forming the opinions and attitudes of the Colonists. All but the most uneducated Colonists were aware that their “rights as Englishmen” were related to the Magna Carta and its interpretive development. They also knew that the English Civil War overthrew and executed one King, and later the “Glorious Revolution,” idolized by most colonists as a triumph of Protestantism, deposed another. All of this makes the colonial attitude towards their rights and their King historically located and understandable. None of this was mentioned in The American Revolution. This reflects a Leftist disdain of constitutional history as “bourgeois” and irrelevant. Indeed, this is the most serious error and omission of the series.

Despite these flaws, I would affirm that The American Revolution reflects in a major degree the biblical perspective of history. That is, that heroes have serious flaws, but are still providentially used by God. In the Bible the real hero of the Old Testament is God, with multiple “supporting characters” who are imperfect and sometimes disreputable. Moses sinned by destroying the tablet of the Ten Commandments. His brother Aaron, first High Priest, lied about his role in forming the golden calf. In fact, the heroes in the Book of Judges, who were chosen by God to save the Israelites from destruction and oppression, had major flaws, as in Samson and his inability to keep his pants up. David, certainly Israel’s best king, is not spared narrative criticism. His adultery and murder of Uriah was exposed by the prophet Nathan and detailed in the book of Second Kings (chapter 12). And although David repented (Psalm 51) he could not avoid the consequences of his sins. These included a rebellion against him by his son Absalom and ultimately a divided kingdom.

In the New Testament, we see Peter denying Christ three times. After Pentecost, when he was indeed strengthened by the Holy Spirit, he slid away from the freedom of the Gospel and cowardly appeased the “men from Jerusalem” (Galatians 2:11-14).

So perhaps the “heroes” of the Bible were mostly like our Washington. He was the Father of a nation, hero in battle, master of fortitude and resiliency in the midst of setbacks But he also had the flaws of accepting slavery even though he knew it was evil, and perpetuating injustices towards the Indians.

The Founding Fathers’ faults have been routinely taught in American schools for decades now. Most recently, The New York Times’ “The 1619 Project” exaggerated these to the point of mendacity. The ill effects of such a negative focus will be felt in American educations for decades to come. It has resulted in a noticeable, some say catastrophic, decline in patriotism among the younger generation. (What will be the outcome of some future conflict with China fought by a demoralized and unpatriotic draftee Army?)

We can never revert to the traditionalist narrative of neglecting the negative aspects of American history – that would be both impossible in a free society, and more importantly, unbiblical. The Trump administration has begun to undo some of the gross exaggerations by attempting to mold educational textbooks and curriculum to a patriotic position. But American education is largely a state issue, and reversing decades of the exaggerated anti-American narrative and “The 1619 Project,” now embedded in the attitudes of teachers, would be an especially difficult task. Saying this, I commend reasonable attempts, as for example those done in Florida and other conservative states to correct the anti-American narrative with more balanced textbooks and curricula.

Since if we are not likely to get back the traditional patriotism of “The Greatest Generation” which lived through and fought the Second World War, what type of patriotism can come from a biblical perspective? That would be a reasonable love of country that cherishes its good points and achievements, but does not hide its sinful mistakes. St. Augustine, who did not use the term patriotism but rather love of one’s own homeland, noted: “So long as we are in this mortal body, we are away from the Lord… and we love, as is natural, our own land where we live for a time” (The City of God XIX.17).

Augustine also noted that our love of country was to be subordinated to our loyalty and love for the Kingdom of God, and he was especially aware of the temptation to glorify early kingdoms to the point of idolatry. This happened significantly in the Roman Empire when its citizens were required to offer incense to the Emperor – and many Christians were martyred for not doing so.

I talked about Mexico and how God must be pleased with how – after conquest and much injustice to the Indians by the Spaniards – Mexico has developed a largely “mestizo” culture, where their races have been blended and are now living harmoniously. Other countries, like Bolivia, have no done so well. I also noted how successive Mexican governments since the Revolution of 1917, which many Mexicans idolize, had begun a tradition of government corruption that was never effectively confronted. This led to the present danger of having Mexico divided into a collection of drug “principalities” where gangster lawlessness prevailed. Their patriotism and prayers for Mexico must continue in spite of an imperfect home country.

Then I called on them to love and respect their present homeland where they had come to live and work. Here they establish businesses without having to bribe the police or government bureaucrats. America fought wars for freedom which destroyed both Fascism and Communism, something to be immensely proud of.

And yes, American culture has many faults. But again, my congregants had the biblical obligation to pray for the American presidents and state governors and its governments. It was especially important to pray for wisdom in the American presidents with their ability to begin and end wars. At the time, several in my congregation already had children in the Armed Forces (that was fifteen years ago, I wonder if any died in Afghanistan or Iraq).

All of which is to say, there can be an Augustinian-Christian approach to patriotism that takes into account mankind’s universal sinfulness in its different national manifestations, but celebrates one’s national achievements.

PR

It is easy to agree that human beings are created in the image of God. More debate may arise if we widen the idea to say that humankind as a whole—humanity if you will—reflects the divine image. The difference between the two may be described as the primary focus of the kind of public theology that forms the subject of Daniela Augustine’s book. As the title suggests, she offers a vision of shared flourishing in the image of God that focuses on how God’s Spirit leads humanity to the common good. In her own terms, she pursues the question how a market-shaped world can be mended by the common good in the Spirit’s activity. This task leads through the question how we can get from the common image to the common good (Chapter 1) and how we turn from a world of violence that destroys God’s image to a life that reflects the new creation (Chapter 2). The way to answer these questions leads trough rather unusual terrain for Pentecostals: the recovery of the Eucharist as a sacrament of the divine presence in the realm of economics (Chapter 3) and the experience of forgiveness and reconciliation in the agency of the Spirit (Chapter 4). The book concludes with reflections on how Christians make this agency visible and what moral imperatives are gained for a concrete living community.

Daniela C. Augustine is Associate Professor of Theological Ethics at Lee University.

Augustine’s unusual repertoire for this volume comes from field work with the Pentecostal community in Eastern Slavonia and religion’s role in the transformation of postwar civil society. Augustine argues that “due to their historical neutrality in the conflict, the Pentecostals were uniquely positioned to provide safe space for social healing and facilitate reconciliation among the warring (Orthodox, Catholic, and Muslim) factions” (p. 5). This research provides the backdrop for writing a narrative of the human agency that contributes to the healing and flourishing of life, a hagiography, in the terms of the Christian traditions, or in Augustine’s contemporary terms, a narrative of “the socio-transformative capacity of the saints’ lives as pneumatic embodiment of the world’s eschatological future” (p. 7). That this imagery and vocabulary is not usual for Pentecostal discourse, especially in the West, and the application of this “ancient” Christian tradition, particularly with resources from Eastern Orthodoxy, to contemporary concerns for peace, justice, and forgiveness, on the one hand, and to economics and human flourishing, on the other, make this book both a constructive and creative as well as a challenging read.

Reviewed by Wolfgang Vondey

Publisher’s page: https://www.eerdmans.com/Products/4385/the-spirit-and-the-common-good.aspx

Those who succeeded the original apostles as leaders in the churches make no mention of a cessation theory. They do, on the other hand, give testimony of miraculous gifts and healings occurring in their day. I have documented this in my book, 2000 Years of Charismatic Christianity, published by Charisma House. Consider the following quotes from church fathers recognized by both Protestants and Catholics as the legitimate successors of the original apostles.

Justin Martyr (100-165)–“For the prophetical gifts remain with us even to the present time. Now it is possible to see among us women and men who possess gifts of the Spirit of God” (Eddie Hyatt, 2000 Years of Charismatic Christianity, 15).

Irenaeus (125-200)–“In like manner we do also hear many brethren in the Church who possess prophetic gifts and through the Spirit speak all kinds of languages … Yes, moreover, as I have said, the dead even have been raised up, and remained among us for many years” (Hyatt, 16).

Tertullian (150-240)–“For seeing that we too acknowledge the spiritual charismata, or gifts, we too have merited the attainment of the prophetic gift … and heaven knows how many distinguished men, to say nothing of the common people, have been cured either of devils or of their sicknesses” (Hyatt, 17).

Novation (210-280)–“This is he [the Holy Spirit] who places prophets in the church, instructs teachers, directs tongues, gives powers and healings, does wonderful works … and arranges whatever gifts there are of the charismata; and thus making the Lord’s Church everywhere, and in all, perfected and completed (Hyatt, 20-21).

Origen (185-284)–“Some give evidence of their having received through this faith a marvelous power by the cures which they perform, invoking no other over those who need their help that that of the God of all things, along with Jesus and a mention of his history” (Hyatt, 18-19).

Augustine (354-430)–In his work, The City of God, Augustine tells of healings and miracles that he has observed first hand and then says, “I am so pressed by the promise of finishing this work that I cannot record all the miracles I know” (44-45).