George III or Jesus Christ? Who are we really celebrating independence from today? If the Declaration of Independence gives us that answer, perhaps we should take a brief look into what that document really stands for.
I think a good book could be written on this topic, but let’s focus on the first two sentences of the Declaration just to get a flavor:
“WHEN in the Course of human Events, it becomes necessary for one People to dissolve the Political Bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the Powers of the Earth, the separate and equal Station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent Respect to the Opinions of Mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the Separation. We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness…” Declaration of Independence, 1776.
NATURE’S GOD AND JOHN LOCKE’S CHRISTIANITY
Thomas Jefferson was charged with drafting the original version of the Declaration of Independence and was a document primarily designed to make a political statement. Although we see references to a “Nature’s God” and “Creator,” no one can reasonably deny it is a secular political document.
Nevertheless, as self-professing Christians who have a duty to understand our past with a stake in our nation’s future, we need to ask who is this Nature’s God and Creator referred to in the Declaration, anyway?
Well, “he” or “they” are not the Christian God and certainly not Jesus Christ, who is King of king, and Lord of lords (Apocalypse/Revelation 19:16). The history of the term “Nature’s God” is somewhat clouded in mystery, but represents concepts deeply ingrained within Enlightenment concepts and principles, antithetical to Christian doctrine. You won’t find anything about “Nature’s God” in the Bible.
We know, of course, that Jefferson relied heavily on John Locke (1632–1704) for his ideas that were incorporated into the Declaration of Independence. Locke seemed very pious. His writings often included references to Christianity and Christ. But, he was slippery—at best. He betrays his lack of Christian faith on several fronts beginning most notably when he rejects the concept of Original Sin, and presumably St. Paul’s understanding of it (See Rom 5:12-19; 1 Cor 15:21-23), by claiming:
“If by death, threatened to Adam, were meant the corruption of human nature in his posterity, ’tis strange, that the New Testament should not any-where take notice of it, and tell us, that corruption seized on all, because of Adam’s transgression, as well as it tells us so of death. But, as I remember, every one’s sin is charged upon himself only” John Locke, The Reasonableness of Christianity as Delivered in the Scriptures in the Works of John Locke.
Here, Locke clearly does not believe or understand the concept of Original Sin and seems to hold this doctrine as extremely unfair and unjust. But, if one rejects Original Sin, then one necessarily will not have a complete or proper understanding of Jesus Christ. He reaches this obvious conclusion when he asks: “It will here possibly be asked…What need was there of a Saviour? What advantage have we by Jesus Christ?” Ibid.
Locke’s answer is that Christ was a moral teacher and law giver, who taught a pure doctrine of ethics before the corruption of the evil clergy and priests, i.e. the Roman Catholic Church that he despised:
“Though the works of nature, in every part of them, sufficiently evidence a deity; yet the world made so little use of their reason, that they saw him not, where, even by the impressions of himself, he was easy to be found. Sense and lust blinded their minds in some, and a careless inadvertency in others, and fearful apprehensions in most, (who either believed there were, or could not but suspect there might be, superiour unknown beings,) gave them up into the hands of their priests, to fill their heads with false notions of the Deity, and their worship with foolish rites, as they pleased: and what dread or craft once began, devotion soon made sacred, and religion immutable. In this state of darkness and ignorance of the true God, vice and superstition held the world. Nor could any help be had, or hoped for, from reason; which could not be heard, and was judged to have nothing to do in the case; the priests, everywhere, to secure their empire, having excluded reason from having any thing to do in religion. And in the crowd of wrong notions, and invented rites, the world had almost lost the sight of the one only true God (emphasis added).” Ibid.
Notice Locke’s Anti-Catholic references to “superstition”, “foolish rites”, “state of darkness” and “excluded reason.” Reason, enlightenment and dispelling myths is what Christ stood for and why we needed Him, according to Locke.
And this last point about reason is key to understanding “Nature’s God” and Locke’s understanding of the Creator. Locke proclaimed himself a Christian, most certainly because it was politically expedient, but also because he claimed it was reasonable. And REASON is what true Christianity stands for—despite the efforts of the priests and the Catholic Church to enslave the world to superstition in Locke’s mind. And these ideas are exactly the ones shared by many philosophers before Locke (such as Spinoza), contemporaneously with Locke (Toland) and during American Revolutionary times (Jefferson).
JEFFERSON ON CHRISTIANITY
Unlike Locke, Jefferson did not provide us any formal works on the issue of religion, leaving us to piece his ideas together from various letters. A brief review of just a couple of these letters, however, shows us his views to be much in line with Locke:
“But I have ever thought religion a concern purely between our God and our consciences, for which we were accountable to him, and not to the priests…For it is in our lives, and not from our words, that our religion must be read. By the same test the world must judge me. But this does not satisfy the priesthood. They must have a positive, a declared assent to all their interested absurdities. My opinion is that there would never have been an infidel, if there had never been a priest. The artificial structures they have built on the purest of all moral systems, for the purpose of deriving from it pence and power, revolts those who think for themselves, and who read in that system only what is really there.” Jefferson’s Letters, To Mrs. Samuel H. Smith Monticello, August 6, 1816.
Jefferson doesn’t hide his feelings on the Roman Catholic Church when the topic comes up. While these thoughts may be perfectly in line with the Protestant worldview of the time and even today, his anti-Church position actually applies to all secs of Protestantism as well, and strikes at the heart of what it means to be a Christian:
“As you say of yourself, I too am an Epicurean…Epictetus & Epicurus give us laws for governing ourselves, Jesus a supplement of the duties & charities we owe to others. the establishment of the innocent and genuine character of this benevolent Moralist, and the rescuing it from the imputation of imposture, which has resulted from artificial systems*, invented by Ultra-Christian sects, unauthorised by a single word ever uttered by him is a most desirable object, and one to which Priestly has succesfully devoted his labors and learning. it would in time, it is to be hoped, effect a quiet euthanasia of the heresies of bigotry and fanaticism which have so long triumphed over human reason, and so generally & deeply afflicted mankind.” *[Jefferson’s footnote in original letter:] “e.g. the immaculate conception of Jesus, his deification, the creation of the world by him, his miraculous powers, his resurrection & visible ascension, his corporeal presence in the Eucharist, the Trinity, original sin, atonement, regeneration, election, orders of Hierarchy Etc.” Thomas Jefferson to William Short, 31 October 1819.
Here, Jefferson not only rejects dogmas associated only with the Roman Catholic Church, but also Christ’s divinity, the Trinity and Original Sin. Like Locke (and so many today), Jefferson views Christ as a good moral teacher, but not divine or as the Redeemer.
This letter is also significant because it shows us that Jefferson saw himself as an Epicurean, which means he subscribes to the idea of what we would call materialism. That is, our universe consists of only material basic units (called atoms) and humanity (along with everything else) exist because of the organization of those atoms, bouncing into one another to form complex objects and living things without the aid of supernatural power.
Epicurean ethics is described by Encyclopedia Britannica as:
“the identification of good with pleasure and of the supreme good and ultimate end with the absence of pain from the body and the soul—a limit beyond which pleasure does not grow but changes; the reduction of every human relation to the principle of utility, which finds its highest expression in friendship[.]”
Putting this together, Jefferson denied supernatural intervention in the material world and our ultimate goal or purpose for existing is the pursuit of happiness. While Jefferson would concede happiness can only be attained through exercise of virtue and morality, eternal life with God the Father, Son and Holy Ghost in Heaven is not why we are here. Like the Modernists of today, Jefferson’s ideas on Christ can be boiled down to: Jesus taught us how to be moral and consequently happy in this life, which necessarily means avoiding rigid dogmas of the clericalists.
[SIDE NOTE: I believe one of the reasons the Modernists in the Church today defend Jefferson and the principles upon which America was founded is because their worldview and even their theology is quite similar.]
Jefferson’s thoughts on Christianity helps us to understand his desire to cut up the Bible and paste it back together in order to highlight Christ’s moral teaching to the exclusion of anything connected with his divinity or supernatural miracles. This project resulted in The Jefferson Bible: The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth.
NATURE’S GOD AND THE REVOLT OF REASON
Who or what then is Nature’s God? It is the Enlightenment’s representation of that power only found in the material world, exclusive of any supernatural divine authority or power. It is the ultimate power of REASON, or for some Enlightenment Deists, a creator god who set in motion the material world and then stepped away, abandoning mankind to fend for himself and his own reason for survival. For our purposes, the key point here is that the Creator and Nature’s God, identified in the Declaration of Independence, cannot be associated with any notion of the Christian Trinitarian God, or Jesus Christ, the Second Person of the Trinity who was conceived by the Holy Ghost in the virgin womb of Mary, died for our sins, and raised Himself from the dead.
But if the Declaration of Independence was not grounded in Christian dogma and principles, what was it grounded in? It was derived quite openly from the will of “the People.” In other words, the power to declare for ourselves a new nation (or union of 13 states more accurately) was assumed from the bottom up and not from top down. Those who chose to revolt against the King of England did so by their own authority and will, in accordance with “reason” they claim, not by the power or authority of God.
Reason is what separates us from the animals and is one way that we know we are made in the image of God, the summit and source of all rationality. But where the founders went wrong is that true freedom, or liberty, cannot morally be exercised using our unaided reason in the absence of God’s grace.
Pope Leo XIII specifically addresses this concept, upon which the United States of America was purportedly founded in the Declaration:
[A]ll prescriptions of human reason can have force of law only inasmuch as they are the voice and the interpreters of some higher power on which our reason and liberty necessarily depend… But all this, clearly, cannot be found in man, if, as his own supreme legislator, he is to be the rule of his own actions. It follows, therefore, that the law of nature is the same thing as the eternal law, implanted in rational creatures, and inclining them to their right action and end; and can be nothing else but the eternal reason of God, the Creator and Ruler of all the world. To this rule of action and restraint of evil God has vouchsafed to give special and most suitable aids for strengthening and ordering the human will. The first and most excellent of these is the power of His divine grace, whereby the mind can be enlightened and the will wholesomely invigorated and moved to the constant pursuit of moral good, so that the use of our inborn liberty becomes at once less difficult and less dangerous.” Libertas Praestantissimum (1888).
This brief sketch on America’s Independence Day should help remind us that America is a creature of the Enlightenment and not Christianity. It’s Enlightenment liberalism at it’s finest, upon which our intellectual and moral principles as a political unit are established. But it is a foundation of sand. Founding a nation that rejects the Kingship of Christ, His Church and His sovereign rule is doomed to fail. Today is a good day to reflect on the need to educate our American brothers and sisters on Christ’s Kingship, for the salvation of their souls, and as a necessary step in building up an authentic Christian society in the America.
Sources used for this article for additional and more in-depth reading: Davies, Michael. The Second Vatican Council and Religious Liberty. Angelus Press, 2015.; Stewart, Matthew. Nature’s God: the Heretical Origins of the American Republic. W.W. Norton & Company, 2015.