Matthew Stewart’s Nature’s God: The Heretical Origins of the American Republic is, at least to my mind, one of the most interesting, readable and important books I have read in 2014. I could hardly put it down. It reads easily and demonstrates quite convincingly most, though not all, of the author’s claims.
Stewart argues that the ideas which directly shaped the American revolution were largely ancient, pagan and continental (i.e., European not English). The Roman poet and philosopher Lucretius, and the natural divinity of the Dutch Jewish heretic Benedict de Spinoza (photo at right), largely shaped the views of most of our American founders.
Stewart draws deeply from a study of European philosophy, without becoming bogged down in ideas that you cannot comprehend. He shows how the philosophical ideas of the founders were shaped by thinkers that were anathema to the clergy of the time. These American revolutionaries hated the idea of God’s law and rejected supernatural revelation.
When you read the Declaration of Independence you should ask questions: “What is meant by Nature’s God?” “What does the term self-evident mean?” The question that deeply interests me is this: “What did they mean by the pursuit of happiness?” I have always understood this phrase to mean: “the freedom to live your convictions and earn a living, etc.” When each of these terms is understood on its own terms, within the actual context of the philosophical ideas behind them, you soon realize that these words were anything but Christian. And these were not simply Thomas Jefferson’s radical ideas but those of almost all of the leaders of the time.
The term “nature’s God” provides a good example of my point. This is language which means, in both its origins and context, the god who is nature. It is radical monism and leads to a view that says god=nature! I know that comes as a shock to many who read these words but if you doubt them read Stewart. Then go back and read the best material you can find about the Revolution and the founders’ ideas. Read them critically and look for the clues. Understand them in their own context. Do not let modern Christian popularizers foster the myth of our founding ideas without learning the truth. In this case the truth is far more interesting than the myth.
In addition to this deeply flawed view of American history regarding our true origins, there is the view that the founders and framers held of Catholics. Their hatred for all things Roman Catholic left a spiritual blight on America that has only recently begun to recede. What became a “Protestant Nation” early in the 1800s was very definitely an anti-Catholic one up to and well beyond the Civil War. (One could argue that this was there case to right up the election of John F. Kennedy in 1960!)
Finally, the myth about America’s “Christian” origins is ludicrous to serious historians. More importantly, it is down right dangerous to the renewal of the church and firm belief in the gospel, not the gospel of America. Friends, I am not making this up in order to attack conservative Christians. Quite the opposite. As a confessional Christian who believes in Jesus Christ as Lord I want to see the church reject myths that clearly hold us back from a deep renewal of the Spirit. I sincerely, and now more passionately, believe these “myths” about Christian America’s origins harm the work of true mission.
When I finished reading Stewart I asked one question: “How did a nation founded on such radical ideas evolve into one that did become a great culture in which Christian faith and Christian churches could flourish?” I believe the answer is complicated but in short there are two parts to it. First, the revivals in the early 1800s played a huge role in recovering the gospel and the practice of true faith. Second, the freedoms granted to us by these radical thinkers left a door open for Christians to do mission freely and though our story is mixed, at best, we evangelized quite well in this free land where our various expressions of faith were freely permitted. My deepest concern now is that we no longer evangelize well and the philosophical ideas that inform our system of law and government will not sustain us unless the righteous live by faith in the Son of God (cf. Romans 1:16-17). Only then will our good works bring glory to God.
We are presently living in a time when the radical ideas of our founders are actually becoming more prominent than most of us realize. This is why the Tea Party gets the narrative of our nation right on one level but profoundly wrong on another. The Tea Party gets right the fact that “the people” are the government and that they alone have the “unalienable right” to overthrow a government that they believe is not the government of the true sovereign, the people. Both liberal and conservative voices now contend that the Tea Party does, in a simplistic and at times distorted way, represent the founders ideals. In reality, neither conservative nor liberal voices are precisely right in how they use this narrative. The truth is that the founders believed that the people had the right to directly control their own destiny and political direction and if this direction was not consistent with their own rights then they had every reason to overthrow their government because it was not a government “of the people.”
The reality is this – a nation founded on such revolutionary ideas cannot stand unless there is something more transcendent to hold it together. On the whole we have several generations who now think this “glue” is themselves! So far the republic still works. Time will tell how well it can work.
My Latest Book!
Use Promo code UNITY for 40% discount!
Donnie Freeman liked this on Facebook.
Richard Kidd liked this on Facebook.
Laura Beth Ferrara… let’s discuss.
Great post. I think I spotted one typo. “Second, the freedoms granted to us by these radical thinkers left a door open to Christians to do mission and tough our story is mixed, at best, we evangelized in this free land quite well.” I think you meant “though”. 🙂
Judy Browder Shaw liked this on Facebook.
Joe Jewell liked this on Facebook.
Forrest Lee Horn liked this on Facebook.
Every time I’m tempted to purchase a book I’ll check out the reviews. Especially true if my ox was gored. I’ve never been too gung ho about a christian nation even though there were: 28 Episcopalians, 8 Presbyterians, 7 Congregationalists, 2 Lutherans, 2 Dutch Reformed, 2 Methodists, 2 Roman Catholics, 1 unknown, and only 3 deists–Williamson, Wilson, and Franklin–this at a time when church membership entailed a sworn public confession of biblical faith. [John Eidsmoe, Christianity and the Constitution, (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1987), p. 43.]
I’ve recently read bios of the first 4 presidents, none of which would be considered evangelical in the modern sense. Eye opening. The conflict between faith and politics was as bitter then as now. Jefferson’s favorite quote was “Humanity will not be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest.”
We’re a Christian nation?
Philip Kamp, counting up denominational is not the same as examining the writings used to frame the nation and how they were used. Many were churchmen but what did this mean at the time and how did this influence their thinking and acting in terms of the nation’s founding documents? My ox was gored long ago but the reality that mugged my myths about the nation and its origins. 🙂
I believe this is a false issue. The principles emanating from “nature’s God” come under the rubric of Romans 1:19-20. There was Creation before there was Gospel, because the purpose of Gospel is to restore Creation to what it is supposed to be (e.g., Romans 8:19-23). What’s true is true, whether grounded in Scripture or in universal reality (and the two can’t be inconsistent with each other, because both are the expression of God’s Word, John 1:1-3, Hebrews 1:1-3, etc.).
John H. Armstrong 70 % of the founding fathers (proper noun) were calvinist. on the face of it, it seems highly unlikely that Calvinist would attribute “nature’s god’ to mean someone other than God.
Richard Richard C. Leonard and Philip Kamp we simply could not be more differently persuaded. I will not attempt to remonstrate with you both only to urge you to study what “nature’s God” really meant in the long history of the idea itself, not the “looking back” on it from afar.. It is a NOT biblical expression in any sense. And the framers were not trinitarian Christians with only a relatively few minor exceptions. These facts should not be ignored. Yes, there were Christians at the Constitutional Convention, which is another matter, but the War was promoted by non-Christian forces. This is one reason so many Christians were conflicted about supporting it. I have long felt I would not have supported the war and could not in conscience or principle.
Another excellent post that really hits it. As is often the case, contemporary understanding clouds history and to see this article clearly one must go back to the original context, as this points out well and provides the references to do so. Thank you for a thought provoking article that made me do some digging. I love these
I am not equipped to engage with your perceptive article on the issue of what the framers actually understood by “nature’s God.” The question of our nation’s future course will probably not be settled on the basis of what the framers were thinking. We need to establish a “new” foundation for developing a worldview that will guide the church’s witness to culture. What I am suggesting is that such a foundation is already laid out in Scripture, but has been largely ignored in discussions of national purpose.
it is helpful to understand how God used Cyrus and Artaxerses to take care of Israel. There are incredible lessons for our nation, especially us Christians, to see how God used Esther, Joseph and Daniel and Nehemiah in environments that could be hostile without His favor.
Paul Petry liked this on Facebook.
Ray Prigodich liked this on Facebook.
I find it alarming that a book written by an atheist would sway Christians in regards to the Christian Heritage of the American Republic.
The evidence to support a Christian influence in the founding of the Republic is so voluminous as to make a counter-argument obsurd.
Here’s just one link that speaks of President Washingtons faith:
I’d cite more but I’ll run out of characters!
Still much more at my site: http://www.whateveristrue.com/heritage